Posted on 04/06/2008 5:47:27 PM PDT by do the dhue
The Baghdadis caught between these extremes know that the only thing standing in the way of another sectarian conflagration is the U.S. military. This may explain why every Iraqi who offers me a view on American politics seems to be praying for a McCain victory.
(Excerpt) Read more at time.com ...
Well done.
Thanks. I do appreciate that.
Because if you are,
Please tell Africa how to avoid another Genocide.
Can you predict, and tell Africans how to avoid another Genocide?
You can measure my give a crap level on Africa somewhere between absolute zero and negative Pi.
“Oh, and the constitution party are a bunch of lunatics - no wonder you like them so much!”
They were certainly not my first choice, but when the Repubes nominated that backstabbing bastard for POTUS this year, I really had little choice.
Your post, well what I read of it anyway, assumes and awful lot that you cannot be sure of unless you can see the future. Can you see the future? Look, I support the troops. I have made and sent care packages to my former unit on numerous occasions. One can do that and still KNOW that the reason we were given for the initial invasion has BEEN PROVEN wrong. I didn’t call for an immediate pull out. Would it break my heart if that happened? Not in the slightest. You, do the dhue, have given much better reasons for continuing the war than the administration ever gave for beginning it. Hell, even that ‘tard in the oval office stopped talking about WMD’s years ago! Even HE knows it was BS by now!
I don’t have a retort; point taken..........
Did you lift this crap from Daily Kos or did you think this up all by yourself? You sound like Code Stink.
“Did you lift this crap from Daily Kos or did you think this up all by yourself? You sound like Code Stink.”
No, I sound like someone that supported the initial invasion based on the mistaken information that we had at the time. The WMD’s that we were told would be found there, weren’t. Unlike the maggot infested, long-haired, pot smoking hippy protestors, I am not emotional over the issue. I simply ask two questions; What was the number one reason cited over and over by the POTUS and the VPOTUS as the pressing need to to invade, and did that prove to be correct or incorrect. Leaving everything else out of the equation, if you are honest with yourself you know what the answers to those questions are. As I said in an earlier post, not even Bush has mentioned WMD’s in months. DO you think that there just MIGHT be a reason for that?
:)
Also, a lot of the reason come from the Administration. The fact is, the media and only harp on the WMDs. If you listened you would have heard a laundry list of reason to go to war with Iraq. It wasn't just because of the WMDs, there were other reason laid on the table, but people want to focus on the WMD thing.
The non-disclosure was a mistake by Saddam, as he was obligated to disclose all information relating to WMDs. You ignore the threat posed by Saddam regarding terrorism. As I stated earlier, Saddam was in breach of his obligations regarding terrorism. In fact, Russian intel claims Saddam was planning terror attacks against the U.S. at home and abroad. Had he successfully carried out these attacks, I have no doubt you would blame the U.S. rather than Saddam (as you do regarding the non-disclosure of WMDS).
“So we attacked Iraq because sometime off...”
Translation: I’m too lazy to actually read the congressional authorization relating to the event, so I’ll just make up strawmen arguements and use snide comments.
“Had he successfully carried out these attacks, I have no doubt you would blame the U.S. rather than Saddam (as you do regarding the non-disclosure of WMDS).”
Actually no, I do not blame my country for wrongdoing except when the evidence points to it being wrong.
“’And if you ask me, the Iraqi people are smarter then demoratic voters.’
And better than 70% of them are flat out illiterate or functionally illiterate. What does that tell you about democrats?”
They read the news.
Exactly.
The DEmocrats were able to spin this whole thing on its head. The burden was on Saddam to prove he didn’t have the weapons, not on the US/UN to prove he did. At the time, three other countries successfully demonstrated disarmament (not four). Bush, post-9/11, along with Repubs and Dems, some of whom are running for office contrary to their original position, did not want to take the risk and continue playing a guessing game.
Saddam shouldn’t have played games. His disclosures to the UN were bunk, and as Hans Blix said prior to the invasion, Iraq was in material breach and failed to show it had disarmed, thus, as per the language of UN Resolution 1441, Saddam faced serious consequences.
I hear you and I concur 100%.
Ditto.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.