U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-02-2009, 07:31 PM
 
957 posts, read 904,309 times
Reputation: 195

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by springfieldva View Post
I suppose you would have preferred to fight this one out on our turf?
For the love of gawd stop getting all your info from Rush/Fox. You really don't have a clue what's going on.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-02-2009, 08:48 PM
 
Location: Democratic Peoples Republic of Redneckistan
11,102 posts, read 13,137,988 times
Reputation: 3923
Quote:
Originally Posted by springfieldva View Post
Yah, and that would have been a great way to get our a$$es blown right off of this planet. You really think Bush/Cheney or any other former President was that evil? Remember Congress backed him on this war too (at least until it became unpopular to do so).
I would like to say NO,but the truth is these are not NICE people who make it to POTUS......there are a few books written by former people in high places (long before THIS war) who have said as much....who profited from Vietnam??? Us? The soldiers? NO...a non union contracting company owned(MAJOR shareholder) by a dem politicians wife that just happened to be in office at the time.Johnson!.......Now this war...a no bid contract won by a scab outfit tied directly to....Cheney.

I'm not flaming you,but you really do need to grow up if you think ANY politician is in it for honor or is a "nice" person....the higher they rise,the more evil they are and money is what satisfies their huge appetites....end of the bedtime story.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-03-2009, 08:18 AM
 
Location: SE Arizona - FINALLY! :D
19,872 posts, read 22,685,733 times
Reputation: 7146
Quote:
Originally Posted by springfieldva View Post
I never thought for a second that Saddam was a religious man. His palace was a house of horrors where women were tortured and raped by Saddam's sons. Not to mention the mass graves all over his country - this is what he did to his own people. He was not religious but he "used Islam as a tool to curry favor with the people of the Middle East". Clearly a very dangerous person. Not someone who should have WMD's, you think?

Suppose our intelligence had been right. Suppose Saddam did have WMD's but we didn't act because we weren't "for sure" about it. Suppose he had used them against us or one of our allies?
But the fact of the matter is Saddam DIDN'T have WMD's - and thousands of Americans died because of the decision Bush made to go to war when it was unnecessary to do so. The fact is, war is SERIOUS business - and if you are going to send people to their deaths, you better be RIGHT in your reasons for doing so. It's not the kind of thing you can shrug off with a "my bad". People DIED because of the decision to go to war - thousands of Americans were killed and tens of thousands were maimed - and MANY TIMES that number of Iraqis.

If the President MAKES THE CALL to go to war then HE IS RESPONSIBLE for what happens - you can't weenie-*ss him out of it by saying "Suppose our intelligence had been right." I don't blame him for thinking Saddam had WMD's (after all Clinton and virtually everyone else thought he did too) - I blame him for the decision he made about WHAT TO DO ABOUT IT.

The fact of the matter is that there were OTHER WAYS to deal with it - and in fact those OTHER WAYS had ALREADY WORKED - Saddam had already gotten rid of this WMD's. Saddam could have continued to be isolated, we could have worked harder to have him overthrown, we could have launched punitive strikes - there are any number of different things we could have done to deal with him. We did not NEED TO INVADE THE COUNTRY. That was a conscious decision the Bush Administration made. It wasn't FORCED on them, Bush MADE that call. You seem to think that considering the fact that Bush thought Saddam had WMD's that our ONLY OPTION was to attack Iraq - when that is NOT NEARLY the case.

Quote:
Originally Posted by springfieldva View Post
The bottom line is, the world is a much better place without Saddam in it. And, we have managed to capture and take out Al-Qaeda terrorists in Iraq - good riddance also.

We have liberated the people of Iraq and helped them to rebuild their country, which benefits everyone.

Isn't it nice to be able to say "Saddam WAS" instead of "Saddam IS" - I think so.
Of course the world is a better place without Saddam. So? The world would be a better place without Kim Jong-il too - so we obviously NEED to invade there too. And lets not forget all those Saudi Clerics - the world would be better off without them don't you think? So we NEED to invade Saudi Arabia too. And lets not forget those Communist Chinese - GOTTA invade them too.

And yeah, it's "nice" to be able to say "Saddam WAS" - but you know what? Having something be "nice' is not a good enough reason for 4,000+ American dead and tens of thousands of American wounded. I'm sure their survivors think that it's "nice" that you think their deaths were worthwhile. Maybe if you lost someone in that unnecessary war you might not think it was so "nice". You don't send people to their deaths so things can be "nice" - you send them to their deaths when it is NECESSARY - and the Iraq War was NOT necessary.

Ken
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-03-2009, 09:54 AM
 
Location: Columbia, SC
18,007 posts, read 10,040,084 times
Reputation: 6935
Quote:
Originally Posted by springfieldva View Post
Yah, and that would have been a great way to get our a$$es blown right off of this planet. You really think Bush/Cheney or any other former President was that evil? Remember Congress backed him on this war too (at least until it became unpopular to do so).
Without a shadow of a doubt.

But I don't wish them ill.

In fact, I hope they install nice, new gas jets for them right between Judas and Pontius Pilate when they get where they're going.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-03-2009, 11:42 AM
 
957 posts, read 904,309 times
Reputation: 195
Quote:
Originally Posted by LordBalfor View Post
The fact of the matter is that there were OTHER WAYS to deal with it - and in fact those OTHER WAYS had ALREADY WORKED - Saddam had already gotten rid of this WMD's. Saddam could have continued to be isolated, we could have worked harder to have him overthrown, we could have launched punitive strikes - there are any number of different things we could have done to deal with him. We did not NEED TO INVADE THE COUNTRY.
Indeed, Saddam was in the final stages of negotiation to be exiled, when Bush initiated Shock & Awe on a sleeping residential Baghdad neighborhood. There simply wasn't enough money in no-bid contracts for Halliburton et al to be had in a more peaceful transition. So 4,000+ soldiers and half a million Iraqis had to die.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-03-2009, 12:14 PM
 
Location: SE Arizona - FINALLY! :D
19,872 posts, read 22,685,733 times
Reputation: 7146
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heiwos View Post
Indeed, Saddam was in the final stages of negotiation to be exiled, when Bush initiated Shock & Awe on a sleeping residential Baghdad neighborhood. There simply wasn't enough money in no-bid contracts for Halliburton et al to be had in a more peaceful transition. So 4,000+ soldiers and half a million Iraqis had to die.
Well, I'm not really a big believer in the theory that it was all for Halliburton money. I tend to think Bush really DID believe Saddam had WMD's - as did Clinton, etc. I DO think he SAW the data the way he WANTED TO SEE THE DATA - but that's not an uncommon thing. Pretty much everyone does that to some degree or another.

I just happen to think that the man on top who made the decision to go to war is RESPONSIBLE for the effects of that war. Bush made a STUPID decision - one made in haste and not clearly analyzed. Not only was he wrong that Saddam had WMD's, but he jumped the assumption that all would go well and that we would be greeted as liberators.

Personally, though, my biggest gripe with him regarding the war was not even the decision to go to war itself, but the total incompetence with which the planning for the war and subsequent occupation was handled. Rumsfeld rammed through his idea for an "attack light" with not enough troops to actually garrison the country. It was the absolute height of stupidity. If you are going to attack a country you need to make sure you have sufficient forces to actually OCCUPY IT (DUHHHHHHH!).

Then to make it worse, that idiot Bremer disbanded the Iraqi army completely and dismissed anyone associated with the Baath Party (whether they were criminals or not) - leaving the country to fall into absolute chaos - since in Iraq EVERYONE in ANY position of authority to handle ANYTHING (even the public sewer system) had been more or less forced to be a Baath member whether they liked Saddam or not. Talk about a STOOOOPID move.

Those 2 clowns were both Bush's hand-picked guys for the jobs - and then (believe it or not) Bush had the audacity to give Bremer the Presidential Medal of Freedom (our highest civilian honor) - when the bozo is responsible for letting Iraq fall into anarchy.

So, even aside from the MORAL aspects of whether or not the war was either RIGHT or NECESSARY - there is, quite simply the PRACTICAL aspects of the Iraq invasion/occupation - both of which were ENTIRELY BUNGLED.

That - more than ANYTHING ELSE, is what I most criticize Bush for. The idiocy and incompetence he showed was MONUMENTAL.

Ken
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-03-2009, 02:00 PM
 
957 posts, read 904,309 times
Reputation: 195
Good post. Let's not forget that Bush's mishandling of the war included the asinine decision to let arms depots that dotted the country be looted. That's just more evidence in my book that he wanted a protracted war. Bush's actions (or inactions) in Iraq generated hundreds of $billions in profits for his buddies in various industries. I don't think that was a coincidence. Bush told us "I represent the haves and the have mores" and I think meant it. I also think he felt (correctly) that a protracted war would solidify his re-election.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-03-2009, 02:08 PM
 
Location: SE Arizona - FINALLY! :D
19,872 posts, read 22,685,733 times
Reputation: 7146
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heiwos View Post
Good post. Let's not forget that Bush's mishandling of the war included the asinine decision to let arms depots that dotted the country be looted. That's just more evidence in my book that he wanted a protracted war. Bush's actions (or inactions) in Iraq generated hundreds of $billions in profits for his buddies in various industries. I don't think that was a coincidence. Bush told us "I represent the haves and the have mores" and I think meant it. I also think he felt (correctly) that a protracted war would solidify his re-election.
Thanks.
I think we'll just have to agree to disagree regarding whether the result in Iraq was deliberate or the result of gross incompetence. Personally I just can't see the guy (Bush) being smart enough to be that devious. LOL

I DO think though that we are in agreement in regards to the bigger picture of Iraq being a disaster.

Ken
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-03-2009, 02:13 PM
 
957 posts, read 904,309 times
Reputation: 195
I think Bush was a genius in many ways, just not to benefit the public at large.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-03-2009, 02:18 PM
 
5,210 posts, read 9,085,706 times
Reputation: 5879
Quote:
Originally Posted by LordBalfor View Post
But the fact of the matter is Saddam DIDN'T have WMD's - and thousands of Americans died because of the decision Bush made to go to war when it was unnecessary to do so. The fact is, war is SERIOUS business - and if you are going to send people to their deaths, you better be RIGHT in your reasons for doing so. It's not the kind of thing you can shrug off with a "my bad". People DIED because of the decision to go to war - thousands of Americans were killed and tens of thousands were maimed - and MANY TIMES that number of Iraqis.

If the President MAKES THE CALL to go to war then HE IS RESPONSIBLE for what happens - you can't weenie-*ss him out of it by saying "Suppose our intelligence had been right." I don't blame him for thinking Saddam had WMD's (after all Clinton and virtually everyone else thought he did too) - I blame him for the decision he made about WHAT TO DO ABOUT IT.

The fact of the matter is that there were OTHER WAYS to deal with it - and in fact those OTHER WAYS had ALREADY WORKED - Saddam had already gotten rid of this WMD's. Saddam could have continued to be isolated, we could have worked harder to have him overthrown, we could have launched punitive strikes - there are any number of different things we could have done to deal with him. We did not NEED TO INVADE THE COUNTRY. That was a conscious decision the Bush Administration made. It wasn't FORCED on them, Bush MADE that call. You seem to think that considering the fact that Bush thought Saddam had WMD's that our ONLY OPTION was to attack Iraq - when that is NOT NEARLY the case.



Of course the world is a better place without Saddam. So? The world would be a better place without Kim Jong-il too - so we obviously NEED to invade there too. And lets not forget all those Saudi Clerics - the world would be better off without them don't you think? So we NEED to invade Saudi Arabia too. And lets not forget those Communist Chinese - GOTTA invade them too.

And yeah, it's "nice" to be able to say "Saddam WAS" - but you know what? Having something be "nice' is not a good enough reason for 4,000+ American dead and tens of thousands of American wounded. I'm sure their survivors think that it's "nice" that you think their deaths were worthwhile. Maybe if you lost someone in that unnecessary war you might not think it was so "nice". You don't send people to their deaths so things can be "nice" - you send them to their deaths when it is NECESSARY - and the Iraq War was NOT necessary.

Ken
No where did I say, or would I EVER say, that I thought it was "nice" that American soldiers have died in the Iraq war.

You clearly can not be civilized. This conversation is over.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. | Please obey Forum Rules | Terms of Use and Privacy Policy

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top