attn: I apologize for this (politics inside)

[***1776***]

Originally posted by 17 Tubes Thanks...great post. The personal agenda of some people gets in the way of seeking truth, justice and WRG. They blind themsleves to reality...by taking extremist views. I'm not going to pretend for one mintute the GWB is brillinat....but he's hardly the only blame for our modern day ills. Most of that you'll have to look in the mirror.

 

 

 

No Problem, thanks...

 

 

Listen i know Bush has MANY MANY flaws and deserves some "slack" for {censored} thats happened but i ABSOLUTELY HATE HATE HATE when he gets blamed for everything under the sun by people who simply want to "blame Bush" and play politics..

 

When some of them have a short memory! Very sad to play "politics" with a war..

[la0tsu]

Originally posted by ***1776*** When some of them have a short memory! Very sad to play "politics" with a war..

 

 

I guess so! Remember Max Cleland?

[17 Tubes]

Originally posted by la0tsu The WMDs he used in the Iran/Iraq war could not have lasted until the present day. They are chemically unstable and break down within a few years. That is a fact. So, yes, he had them at one point. BUT, between the fact that they don't have an indefinite shelf life and the fact that we destroyed their production capabilities in the first Iraq war (which I supported, BTW), the inspectors were sufficient to contain the situation, and a hell of a lot cheaper.

 

 

Don't forget...which some people HAVE!

 

We're talking 8 or ten years ago...

 

 

People act like information that JUST came out was avalibale then!

 

 

6 or 8 years ago....WMD's were a VERY big concern regarding Iraq. The UN couldn't even definitively prove it.

 

But Germany and France could, and they would know.

[DirtyBird]

Originally posted by ***1776*** Im NOT giving anyone a "free pass" for the {censored} in Iraq, (im not) BUTTTTTT lets not pretend it was only George Bush who thought/said he had WMD's, when many many other people, presidents, countries, organizations said the same thing!

I dont know... I just found it really suspicious from the beginning.

I remember taling ot my friend about how strange it was that Bush came out of what seemed like nowhere and was all of a sudden so concerned about Saddam. He was a non-issue the first 2 years of his presidency. All of a sudden he was so concerned about WMD's...? It just seemed really sudden and I always had this feeling like he was looking for a reason to invade. And I knew he'd find some way to do it.

And he told the UN to go {censored} themselves and invaded... I just felt really vindicated, and then tehy never found any significant WMD's... and I feel even more vindicated. Along with pretty much everyone else who was against the war.

I would have supported the war entirely if he had said he felt Saddam was an evil dictator that needed to be removed. If He did it on humanitarian grounds I wouldhave supported it. But he had to come up with a reason that preyed on the fears of the American people after 9/11.

I'm glad Saddam is gone, but that wasn't the primary reason we invaded and anyone can see that.

And I remember later it came out... I wish I could remember the book... but some guy was discussing how Bush pretty much only listened to "yes-men" as I call them and pretty much ignored all contrary evidence and pressured everyone to find anything they could to support this "WMD" facade.

And that's the way I genuinely feel and I would have supported this war 100 percent if it was done on humanitarian grounds. But that wasn't the official line.

[***1776***]

Originally posted by la0tsu The WMDs he used in the Iran/Iraq war could not have lasted until the present day. They are chemically unstable and break down within a few years. That is a fact. So, yes, he had them at one point. BUT, between the fact that they don't have an indefinite shelf life and the fact that we destroyed their production capabilities in the first Iraq war (which I supported, BTW), the inspectors were sufficient to contain the situation, and a hell of a lot cheaper.

 

 

 

Maybe so and im not disagreeing with you (your partially correct) BUTTT my main point is that it was just George Bush who said he had WMD's, it was other previous presidents (Clinton Adm) other countries (Russia, couple otheres im forgetting) and the U.N who said he had WMD's..

 

It wasnt like G.W. was 1% for WMD's and the rest of the world 99% against WMD's, again many many people thought the same thing as Bush..

 

As far as the weapons themselves who knows for sure? maybe he had some, maybe he was playing a game of "chicken with UN inspectors", maybe he gave some to Syria, maybe some to Iran, who knows for sure..

 

Im sure alot of people would like to re-write things if they had a chance..

[17 Tubes]

Originally posted by DirtyBird I dont know... I just found it really suspicious from the beginning. I remember taling ot my friend about how strange it was that Bush came out of what seemed like nowhere and was all of a sudden so concerned about Saddam. He was a non-issue the first 2 years of his presidency. All of a sudden he was so concerned about WMD's...? It just seemed really sudden and I always had this feeling like he was looking for a reason to invade. And I knew he'd find some way to do it. And he told the UN to go {censored} themselves and invaded... I just felt really vindicated, and then tehy never found any significant WMD's... and I feel even more vindicated. Along with pretty much everyone else who was against the war. I would have supported the war entirely if he had said he felt Saddam was an evil dictator that needed to be removed. If He did it on humanitarian grounds I wouldhave supported it. But he had to come up with a reason that preyed on the fears of the American people after 9/11. I'm glad Saddam is gone, but that wasn't the primary reason we invaded and anyone can see that. And I remember later it came out... I wish I could remember the book... but some guy was discussing how Bush pretty much only listened to "yes-men" as I call them and pretty much ignored all contrary evidence and pressured everyone to find anything they could to support this "WMD" facade. And that's the way I genuinely feel and I would have supported this war 100 percent if it was done on humanitarian grounds. But that wasn't the official line.

The only thinng I can say is that many people are experts on the matter. They have their undercover agents in place.Their spy equipment on satellite, and simply sit in their bunker gathering all the real world information. Then they come to HCAF and post all the real true facts they have uncovered first hand.


No really...the only thing I cansay...really,is we needed to establish a presencein the middle east. We need a base, a place to protect, inform and educate. A place to say..this "{censored}" stops right here. We wiil sacrifice...we will do what ever it takes, to the best of our ability and what their is to work with, to stop the {censored}.

All politics aside...check you Atlas or Globe. IS there a better placein the middle east than Iraq?

really...go ahead and check your internet maps, people.

If we can establish a hint of peace, a hint of stability, a hint of the peoples government, Iraq is the place. And the enemy of peace knows it. Hence the bloodshed.

[***1776***]

Originally posted by DirtyBird I dont know... I just found it really suspicious from the beginning. I remember taling ot my friend about how strange it was that Bush came out of what seemed like nowhere and was all of a sudden so concerned about Saddam. He was a non-issue the first 2 years of his presidency. All of a sudden he was so concerned about WMD's...? It just seemed really sudden and I always had this feeling like he was looking for a reason to invade. And I knew he'd find some way to do it. And he told the UN to go {censored} themselves and invaded... I just felt really vindicated, and then tehy never found any significant WMD's... and I feel even more vindicated. Along with pretty much everyone else who was against the war. I would have supported the war entirely if he had said he felt Saddam was an evil dictator that needed to be removed. If He did it on humanitarian grounds I wouldhave supported it. But he had to come up with a reason that preyed on the fears of the American people after 9/11. I'm glad Saddam is gone, but that wasn't the primary reason we invaded and anyone can see that. And I remember later it came out... I wish I could remember the book... but some guy was discussing how Bush pretty much only listened to "yes-men" as I call them and pretty much ignored all contrary evidence and pressured everyone to find anything they could to support this "WMD" facade. And that's the way I genuinely feel and I would have supported this war 100 percent if it was done on humanitarian grounds. But that wasn't the official line.

Yes and no in short to your post..

He thought Saddam had something to do with 9/11, while Saddam didnt have his hands on 9/11 there was some "circumstantial evidence" with him, now was it enough to Invade Iraq?? I dont know i personally dont think so but there was some who thought so..

He didnt tell the U.N. to "{censored} themselves" and just invaded, there was 16 U.N resolutions (over 10+ yrs) for Saddam to allow inspectors in Iraq, 16! This is not BS or hype, but 100% true! some came after the 1st Gulf war in the early 1990's

Again i would love to change some {censored} in Iraq and Bush/company deserves some criticism no doubt about it but we are there and lets try to get it done right and get out boys home ASAP!

Kudo's for the HC board for having a adult-like normal conversation on a very touchy/emotional situation! We are actually capable at times of doing this lol

[Loghead]

Originally posted by ***1776*** Kudo's for the HC board for having a adult-like normal conversation on a very touchy/emotional situation! We are actually capable at times of doing this lol

Oh, go lick your own taint.

[la0tsu]

Originally posted by ***1776*** Maybe so and im not disagreeing with you (your partially correct) BUTTT my main point is that it was just George Bush who said he had WMD's, it was other previous presidents (Clinton Adm) other countries (Russia, couple otheres im forgetting) and the U.N who said he had WMD's.. It wasnt like G.W. was 1% for WMD's and the rest of the world 99% against WMD's, again many many people thought the same thing as Bush..

 

 

Fair enough, but none of those people thought that going to war was the solution. For the reasons I listed (destabilization, expense, diversion of resources, etc.), they all thought the war was unneccessary.

 

As far as the weapons themselves who knows for sure? maybe he had some, maybe he was playing a game of "chicken with UN inspectors", maybe he gave some to Syria, maybe some to Iran, who knows for sure..

 

 

The inspectors certainly kept him occupied. He certainly wasn't going to deal with Iran. Syria, perhaps, but if any existed and went to Syria, it's because we invaded and didn't secure the borders.

 

Im sure alot of people would like to re-write things if they had a chance..

 

 

I don't get what you're saying here.

[indespise]

Originally posted by Lgehrig4 And you know this for sure because you used to work for the FBI, CIA or had direct contact with Bin Laden? Lets face it, none of us really knows whats going on behind the scenes. We can only draw our conclusions from the tid bits of information we receive from the news agencies. I'm not 100% trusting of the gov't, but I do know that they know more than I and I trust that there was good reason to invade Iraq. I also believe that our people in power in the US generally care about people. When you talk about Hussein your talking about a deranged sociopath who killed and tortured for entertainment. Why do we care about him in the least. I can't see how what we did cannot be good for the Iraqis in the long run.

 

 

If we wanted to stop torture and injustice, there are much better places to invade than Iraq.

[la0tsu]

Originally posted by ***1776*** Yes and no in short to your post.. He thought Saddam had something to do with 9/11, while Saddam didnt have his hands on 9/11 there was some "circumstantial evidence" with him, now was it enough to Invade Iraq?? I dont know i personally dont think so but there was some who thought so..

What evidence? I haven't seen a single shred. If Bush had some, he would have brought it out to bolster his position.

He didnt tell the U.N. to "{censored} themselves" and just invaded, there was 16 U.N resolutions (over 10+ yrs) for Saddam to allow inspectors in Iraq, 16! This is not BS or hype, but 100% true! some came after the 1st Gulf war in the early 1990's

Well, yes, there were resolutions. But the UN never called for invasion, and did caution against it. This too is fact. Also fact is that most countries (ourselves included) only pay attention to the UN resolutions that support their positions.

Again i would love to change some {censored} in Iraq and Bush/company deserves some criticism no doubt about it but we are there and lets try to get it done right and get out boys home ASAP!

I agree 100%. We're there now (though I never hoped to be), but we can't just leave it. Unfortunately, I don't know what criteria we can use to declare the job done. The arbitrary date thing has issues. On the other hand, without some sort of accountability (be it a deadline or not), there is no motivation for the Iraqis to take over the dangerous mission of security. I guess this is another reason I should have had for opposing the war - no exit strategy.

Kudo's for the HC board for having a adult-like normal conversation on a very touchy/emotional situation! We are actually capable at times of doing this lol

I'm going to go ahead and humbly assume that this was directed partially at me, and say, "Thanks!"

[Lgehrig4]

Originally posted by indespise If we wanted to stop torture and injustice, there are much better places to invade than Iraq.

 

 

It's a start. Next in line!

[indespise]

Originally posted by Lgehrig4 It's a start. Next in line!

 

 

We have no reson to move on the the "next in line" when Iraq is still a mess.

[dughaze]

Originally posted by la0tsu Okay, nevermind. I misinterpreted what you were saying. Sorry. Honestly, I don't like it when people hold positions I agree with, but don't know how to support them. Iraq, for example. I thought it was wrong from the start, but it certainly wasn't done for religious reasons or to secure oil. I think it was a combination of honorable but misguided beliefs, such as the notion that we could foster democracy throughout the region by overthrowing Hussein, to give another display of strength, and to win elections. Simplifying it with statements like "blood for oil", or "they started it on 9/11" is a shame on our house. My opposition to the war was for four reasons: I believed the inspectors were doing the job, I thought the risk of destabilization way too great, I didn't think the job was done in Afghanistan (a war I supported), and I feared it would weaken our ability to respond to other crises around the world (I was thinking militarily at the time, but Katrina showed that it went beyond that). I think my positions have all been confirmed, but because there are jerkwads out there who spew crap like "it's a holy war" or "it's all about oil", my valid points get swept to the side.

 

 

Like someone else said, this is a rare and sensible post.

[Lgehrig4]

Originally posted by indespise We have no reson to move on the the "next in line" when Iraq is still a mess.

 

 

no rush. when the time comes

[DirtyBird]

Originally posted by ***1776*** Yes and no in short to your post.. He thought Saddam had something to do with 9/11, while Saddam didnt have his hands on 9/11 there was some "circumstantial evidence" with him, now was it enough to Invade Iraq?? I dont know i personally dont think so but there was some who thought so.. He didnt tell the U.N. to "{censored} themselves" and just invaded, there was 16 U.N resolutions (over 10+ yrs) for Saddam to allow inspectors in Iraq, 16! This is not BS or hype, but 100% true! some came after the 1st Gulf war in the early 1990's Again i would love to change some {censored} in Iraq and Bush/company deserves some criticism no doubt about it but we are there and lets try to get it done right and get out boys home ASAP! Kudo's for the HC board for having a adult-like normal conversation on a very touchy/emotional situation! We are actually capable at times of doing this lol

Thanks for being reasonable, I respect your opinion.


And to the guy who said Iraq was a good base of operations and other things.... Yes, I can see that.

But it's just not right to take what's not yours by force just because it's convenient for you, you know? Yes it's advantageous for us, and yes I agree to an extent we're the good guys with good intentions... but I don't think for a minute that my/our well-intentioned ideas are unanimously supported over there, and there's something to be said for allowing governments and their peoples make their own decisions.

It's just a complicated situation, but just because it's convenient and WE think we are doing the right thing (Surely we've been a positive influence, but I dont know if the positive changes outweigh their consequences yet) doesn't mean we are doing the right thing for the people we've "conquered" for lack of a better term.

I guess what I'm trying to say, is who are we to tell a completely different culture what is right and what is wrong? Just because that's what the terrorists are trying to do doesn't mean we have the right to do it too, although my selfish side agrees it's probably for the best. But I just worry that we're trying to exterminate a whole culture for our own benefit.

But then again... if their representatives weren't insane warlords hellbent on world domination perhaps they'd be better off...

[JamesPeters]

Originally posted by Loghead Oh, go lick your own taint.

 

 

 

[Lgehrig4]

Originally posted by DirtyBird I guess what I'm trying to say, is who are we to tell a completely different culture what is right and what is wrong? Just because that's what the terrorists are trying to do doesn't mean we have the right to do it too, although my selfish side agrees it's probably for the best. But I just worry that we're trying to exterminate a whole culture for our own benefit. But then again... if their representatives weren't insane warlords hellbent on world domination perhaps they'd be better off...

 

 

Civilized societies have been doing this to lesser civilized societies since the beginning of time. Believe me, I would love nothing more than to live in a time of complete peace, devoid of all crimes, war etc. Cultures can coexist peacefully to a point.

 

Lets face it, if we knew of a society who murdered and ate their weakest children, would you say it's their business they have a right to do this on there own land or would you support an invasion to stop the murder asap?

 

Some people just have lower tolerance levels than murdering babies. I for one.

 

God bless out troops!

If this didn't happen we would probably still be hunter gatherer

[la0tsu]

Originally posted by Lgehrig4 Civilized societies have been doing this to lesser civilized societies since the beginning of time.

 

 

And when has it ever worked out for the best of the less civilized culture? Just because it's been done doesn't mean it's right or in keeping with our culture.

 

Lets face it, if we knew of a society who murdered and ate their weakest children, would you say it's their business they have a right to do this on there own land or would you support an invasion to stop the murder asap?

 

 

That's not too far from what's been happening in Darfur, the Sudan. I would love it if we could intervene there, but we have such a massive troop commitment in Iraq that we don't have the resources. This is what I mean when I say that I opposed the war because it would degrade our ability to respond to international crises.

 

Some people just have lower tolerance levels than murdering babies. I for one.

 

 

Well, you have to draw the line somewhere. Unfortunately, there is way more bad {censored} going on in the world than we can take care of. For example, most of Africa.

 

God bless out troops!

 

 

I REALLY hope that you aren't implying that lack of support for the mission equates to lack of support for our troops.

 

If this didn't happen we would probably still be hunter gatherer

 

 

It was agriculture that allowed humans to settle and leave behind the hunter-gatherer life. War is unfortunately necessary sometimes, when thrust upon us (1939 in Europe for example), but it should never be untaken by choice. Aggressive war has never been to the long-term benefit of those waging it.

[DirtyBird]

Originally posted by Lgehrig4 Civilized societies have been doing this to lesser civilized societies since the beginning of time. Believe me, I would love nothing more than to live in a time of complete peace, devoid of all crimes, war etc. Cultures can coexist peacefully to a point. Lets face it, if we knew of a society who murdered and ate their weakest children, would you say it's their business they have a right to do this on there own land or would you support an invasion to stop the murder asap? Some people just have lower tolerance levels than murdering babies. I for one. God bless out troops! If this didn't happen we would probably still be hunter gatherer

I guess what I'm trying to say is taht I'm depressed that we as humanity haven't advanced beyond the metaphorical equivalent of infantophage.

And to think we as a society/culture know all the answers and that our ways are THE correct ways is also rather disturbing and arrogant.

But you have to draw the line somewhere... It's just depressing.

War is undoubtedly what shaped the modern international political system and the wealth of nations. Acquiring new lands/properties/resources can mean life or death, prosperity of poverty for a nation. But the world is settled... let the rogue states war with each other, and let the civilized nations act like civilized nations. Are we not beyond war yet? That depresses me.

War helped shape the world, and I will dare say it has been very necessary at times (Hitler, etc), but we should be past that. Just because war was necessary/okay 1000 years ago doesn't mean it's necessary/okay today. I liken it to slavery... it was okay 200 years ago... but we are horrified by it now.

Things change, cultures mature, and some don't.

I can definitely understand war for the greater good, but this war in Iraq just doesnt seem like it concerns the greater good so much us the Christian/American agenda and selfish American Imperialism.

[Matter-Eater Lad]

Both sides spew {censored} phrases. Big deal. It's the dumb{censored}s on either that eat it up.

[Lgehrig4]

Originally posted by DirtyBird I guess what I'm trying to say is taht I'm depressed that we as humanity haven't advanced beyond the metaphorical equivalent of infantophage. And to think we as a society/culture know all the answers and that our ways are THE correct ways is also rather disturbing and arrogant.

 

 

If someone can invent a pill that completely eliminates the ego you might just have what you wish.

[Urban Ghandi]

Originally posted by DirtyBird I guess what I'm trying to say is taht I'm depressed that we as humanity haven't advanced beyond the metaphorical equivalent of infantophage. And to think we as a society/culture know all the answers and that our ways are THE correct ways is also rather disturbing and arrogant. But you have to draw the line somewhere... It's just depressing. War is undoubtedly what shaped the modern international political system and the wealth of nations. Acquiring new lands/properties/resources can mean life or death, prosperity of poverty for a nation. But the world is settled... let the rogue states war with each other, and let the civilized nations act like civilized nations. Are we not beyond war yet? That depresses me. War helped shape the world, and I will dare say it has been very necessary at times (Hitler, etc), but we should be past that. Just because war was necessary/okay 1000 years ago doesn't mean it's necessary/okay today. I liken it to slavery... it was okay 200 years ago... but we are horrified by it now. Things change, cultures mature, and some don't. I can definitely understand war for the greater good, but this war in Iraq just doesnt seem like it concerns the greater good so much us the Christian/American agenda and selfish American Imperialism.

You seem like a very intelligent and peaceful guy...I respect and admire that.

"We" might be beyond war but it's not all about "us." It takes the whole world to think this way before there is a lasting peace.

The world is full of "haves" and "have nots." If you "have it" you want to keep it you you "don't have it" you want it. I am always reminded of this everytime I travel abroad.

This is where the problems arise.

The problem with turning a blind eye to something like radical Islam is this stuff spills over into what you might call civilized countries. You see, these people have an agenda...To be the last one's standing when the music stops...a world of Islam or die trying.

It's a sad state of affairs with no easy answer.

All I know is my wife would look silly in a Burka!

[guitar shmoe]

naive are those that don't respect the resolve of our enemies (MILLIONS of middle eastern extremist/terrorists) to kill all Americans possible....at ANY COST! (not just soldiers but ALL AMERICANS!!!)

If these 'enemies' are allowed (at any level) to operate, we WILL EVENTUALLY, have more 9/11's...many more!

It is part of our culture to show mercy and establish liberty, freedom and democratic/people rule. Our enemies DO NOT operate on such a cultural/social notion. They will NOT show any mercy and will not stop until they KILL ALL AMERICANS and subjugate the planet to their whacked-out/extremist idealism.

Why is it sooooo hard for liberals to understand this most basic principle? It isn't semantics anymore...it is kill or be killed. SIMPLE!

We shouldn't be ashamed (as some liberals tend to act..) because we are winning the 'war' and stemming the TIDE of terrorism....this is most commendable.

[***1776***]

Originally posted by guitar shmoe naive are those that don't respect the resolve of our enemies (MILLIONS of middle eastern extremist/terrorists) to kill all Americans possible....at ANY COST! (not just soldiers but ALL AMERICANS!!!) If these 'enemies' are allowed (at any level) to operate, we WILL EVENTUALLY, have more 9/11's...many more! It is part of our culture to show mercy and establish liberty, freedom and democratic/people rule. Our enemies DO NOT operate on such a cultural/social notion. They will NOT show any mercy and will not stop until they KILL ALL AMERICANS and subjugate the planet to their whacked-out/extremist idealism. Why is it sooooo hard for liberals to understand this most basic principle? It isn't semantics anymore...it is kill or be killed. SIMPLE! We shouldn't be ashamed (as some liberals tend to act..) because we are winning the 'war' and stemming the TIDE of terrorism....this is most commendable.

 

 

 

I agree to a small extent, but i think what upsets some people is that there were no WMD's found! Personally i think in fact we know he had them (like i said before other people, countries said the same) but i think if we found a *huge stockpile* that the approval would be higher and people would be les skeptical!

 

Just pointing things out..

 

I want the troops home ASAP but i think its a good idea to get things done right before we leave..

 

 

PS --- NOT all arabs want us "dead", its the EXTREMISTS like Hezbolla, Hamas, and the 72 virgin "kooks"...

 

PSS - Lets not paint all the arabs with 1 brush, its simply not correct!