Whew!!!! I do away for a 4 day basketball tournament and miss the best P/R thread of the current year! It has taken me two days to read through all of the posts.

 

Three things:

 

1) I still get frustrated when people equate 9/11 with the Iraqi War. :madman:

2) I really need to read the Koran...I feel like I need to see for myself what it actually says.

3) We need more options in the poll.

Just so we keep it fair and balanced,

 

Did not the United Kingdom live through decades of terrorist attacks committed by Catholics and Protestants against one another?

 

I don't know if there is enough room to list all of the attacks on this forum, but of which washed into England proper from Ireland.

 

 

Only a LITERAL reading of the Koran gives the impression of killing infidels.

Whew!!!! I do away for a 4 day basketball tournament and miss the best P/R thread of the current year! It has taken me two days to read through all of the posts.

 

Three things:

 

1) I still get frustrated when people equate 9/11 with the Iraqi War. :madman:

2) I really need to read the Koran...I feel like I need to see for myself what it actually says.

3) We need more options in the poll.

 

Maybe I missed it in the thread, but who was doing that?

Maybe I missed it in the thread, but who was doing that?

 

Several times - whenever someone says that we are fighting the terrorists in Iraq. Going into Iraq had nothing to do with 911, but that was part of Bush's original argument.

 

Al Quada agents have made it into Iraq, but the people we are fighting there are simply those who want us out. We are not fighting an al quada army in Iraq, we are fighting the Iraqi people (and some Syrians and some Iranians and probably some Sauis)

Maybe I missed it in the thread, but who was doing that?

 

:creepy: Don't make me go back through and read all four pages of posts. I don't remember who made the comment, but it is in there multiple times.

Several times - whenever someone says that we are fighting the terrorists in Iraq. Going into Iraq had nothing to do with 911, but that was part of Bush's original argument.

 

Al Quada agents have made it into Iraq, but the people we are fighting there are simply those who want us out. We are not fighting an al quada army in Iraq, we are fighting the Iraqi people (and some Syrians and some Iranians and probably some Sauis)

 

 

We ARE fighting terrorists in Iraq. We Are fighting people who want us out and that includes both SOME factions of the Iraqi people and terrorists. Just because someone says we are fighting the terrorists in Iraq that does not equate it with 911 and that is a REAL stretch to claim so. There is no al quada army so we will never be fighting one.

Come on H. Read personal accounts of the inspectors and they almost all said that Hussein jerked them around repeatedly as they tried to do their inspection duties. They were followed so the targeted inspection sites could be forewarned; they were denied access at sites for hours; and when they got access it looked to them that the sites had been sanitized. It that's your idea of allowing the inspectors to do their jobs, you and I have completely different opinions on that.

 

And for the longest time Iraq intentionally misled folks to believe that Iraq had WMDs to discourage Iran. It turned out to be a great bluff, but a stupid one at that.

 

If Hussein truly wanted to avoid an invasion, he should have fully cooperated with the inspectors. He DID NOT and he and he alone is responsible for the invasion occurring. I fully understand your position that he should have been given even more time; but to argue that he was not given enough time isn't a solid argument in my mind. At some point, if you are the President of the United States, you have to take action. Should he have waited another couple of month, maybe. Then again, its really easy to second guess that decision now. Had he waited several more months and Hussein used that time to create a stock pile of chemical and biological weapons (which are easily created) and then used them against our troops with deadly effect, there would have been a lot of Americans calling for Bush's head for the unnecessary deaths of our young men and women and I would have been one of them.

 

Why any American trusted Hussein to do the right thing over the long haul, given his past behavior and his insanity, is truly bewildering to me. Why any American trusts the UN to strictly enforce and keep in place the sanctions against Iraq is equally bewildering to me.

 

Iraq is not a good situation right now, I totally agree. I can only hope that with the country a safer place now, that the political mess can be solved. But even if it isn't, there's one less lunatic leading a country sworn to do us harm.

 

And I put zero stock in the argument that the invasion turned Muslims formerly friendly to the US, or even neutral, into hating us. We were hated ferociously before the invasion. 9/11 was before the invasion. The first attack on the WTC was before the invasion. There were many attacks against us by Islamic extremists before the invasion. Why?

 

Because we are the shining beacon for secular countries. We allow religious freedom; we allow democracy; we allow women and minorities to have rights. We are everything that the fanatics hate. And I am glad and proud of that.

 

I'll respond simply with this: we can't afford to invade every country and depose every leader who might eventually develop harmful capabilities and who might use those capabilities in anger us. Had he even been able to produce them under the sanctions in place, there is no proof that Saddam Hussein would have ever provided WMD to terrorists or caused direct harm to the U.S. homeland (indeed, as you are familiar with the Piro interrogation story, you will recall that Saddam regarded Osama bin Laden as a sort of mad man and didn't want anything to do with him). Saddam was interested in WMD to thwart potential Iranian aggression and deliberately created an aura of uncertainty around them to give the Iranian regime reason to avoid conflict. And the fact that evidence surrounding the so-called "case for war" was distorted or at best not presented in an even-handed manner by the Administration only harshens the judgment Bush will receive from history.

 

In the big picture, is it a good thing that Saddam Hussein is no longer in power? Sure. But ousting Saddam (which yields arguably no measurable benefit to the U.S.) did not warrant the cost incurred to date, let alone the cost that will be borne in the future.

I'll respond simply with this: we can't afford to invade every country and depose every leader who might eventually develop harmful capabilities and who might use those capabilities in anger us. Had he even been able to produce them under the sanctions in place, there is no proof that Saddam Hussein would have ever provided WMD to terrorists or caused direct harm to the U.S. homeland (indeed, as you are familiar with the Piro interrogation story, you will recall that Saddam regarded Osama bin Laden as a sort of mad man and didn't want anything to do with him). Saddam was interested in WMD to thwart potential Iranian aggression and deliberately created an aura of uncertainty around them to give the Iranian regime reason to avoid conflict. And the fact that evidence surrounding the so-called "case for war" was distorted or at best not presented in an even-handed manner by the Administration only harshens the judgment Bush will receive from history.

 

In the big picture, is it a good thing that Saddam Hussein is no longer in power? Sure. But ousting Saddam (which yields arguably no measurable benefit to the U.S.) did not warrant the cost incurred to date, let alone the cost that will be borne in the future.

 

On the bolded, remember it was Hillary Clinton in the California debate who said that we KNEW (not might develop, not we thought but KNEW) after the first Gulf War (that would be in her husband's term) that he HAD "a lot of bad stuff" in a regards to her vote to allow the war.

 

According to the leading Democrat contender for Presidency, whether Saddam had some very bad weapons (which I assume is on the nature of WMD's) is not questioned. She indicated that he had them for a FACT.

 

I have quoted her comment in two other places in this forum.

On the bolded, remember it was Hillary Clinton in the California debate who said that we KNEW (not might develop, not we thought but KNEW) after the first Gulf War (that would be in her husband's term) that he HAD "a lot of bad stuff" in a regards to her vote to allow the war.

 

According to the leading Democrat contender for Presidency, whether Saddam had some very bad weapons (which I assume is on the nature of WMD's) is not questioned. She indicated that he had them for a FACT.

 

I have quoted her comment in two other places in this forum.

 

Bush took us to war, he was the President, Hillary was a lowly senator not in control of the intelligence only a recipient of it.

 

Bush took us to war, not Hillary - period.

Exactly. Whatever the Clintons thought of the intelligence concerning Iraq, they didn't take us to war over it. Bush did.

 

There is a huge difference.

Bush took us to war, he was the President, Hillary was a lowly senator not in control of the intelligence only a recipient of it.

 

Bush took us to war, not Hillary - period.

 

Exactly. Whatever the Clintons thought of the intelligence concerning Iraq, they didn't take us to war over it. Bush did.

 

There is a huge difference.

 

I agree with you.

 

Saddam indicated in his interogation he expected only to have to withstand bombing because of what he was doing because that is what the Clintons had done. He was willing to have his country bombed for what he was doing.

 

He just wanted to prevent Iran from invading.

 

He expected what he thought was an easy response like Bill did but got something different.

Exactly. Whatever the Clintons thought of the intelligence concerning Iraq, they didn't take us to war over it. Bush did.

 

There is a huge difference.

 

As long as you feel that going to war is wrong, then you will hate Bush as a President.

As long as you feel that going to war is wrong, then you will hate Bush as a President.

Where did I say that?

 

Going to war is necessary sometimes, especially when national security is threatened. That wasn't the case in Iraq.

Where did I say that?

 

Going to war is necessary sometimes, especially when national security is threatened. That wasn't the case in Iraq.

 

If you have warned a country to do something, under the power of the U.N., and you think they have not done it, that seems to be a threat to our security. The WMD's were not there. However, it was a proactive move rather than a sit on your butt and hope things are going to be all right move. Don't worry. You will never have to acuse Bill Clinton of having made a poor descision. He avoided every descision as a president that he possibly could. There is a difference, I agree.

As long as you feel that going to war is wrong, then you will hate Bush as a President.

I think that's unfair 94. I thought the invasion was at best unwise, at worse, wrong. I didn't dislike Bush until I realized that he was anything but a fiscal conservative and was in bed with the Mexican government. The UN is nothing but a bunch of busy bodies. If they told us to turn over all of our nukes to them, I'm sure we'd tell them where we could arm and stuff our nukes.