Back in the day, writing that the neocons lied us into war got one labeled a commie...an appeaser....a terrorist hugger...and unpatriotic....and the like. But over the past 6 years, the little game of fooling the people has come tumbling down.

"But, but, but...the democrats voted for war too" blah, blah, blah. As the article clearly states, nobody "voted for war" other than Bush, Cheney, Rummy, Libby, and the whole band of lying thugs.

Now Colin Powell has come right out and says it. Bush lied.

We have over 3 trillion dollars of sunk costs and future liability costs on the books so far thanks to the fiasco called Iraq. And what's even worse, Mitt Romney's cabinet would be loaded with the same assholes that hoodwinked America the first time...headed by the Armegeddonite John Bolton.

Obama may be a gutless chickenhawk, but he doesn't talk about the axis of evil running rampant across the globe. He has the human decency of attempting to rid America of torturists.

People can cry all they want to about Obama's socialism...and yet have such a short memory regarding Bush's fascism

.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/09/colin-powell-book_n_1503592.html

It's extremely clear at this point that W. was determined to go to Iraq and the administration didn't perform the ethical, or logical, research before going in.

I used to think W. just made a mistake, but was truly doing what he thought was right, and what would be best for the safety of the United States. But, then he does something dumb like say he was a "dissenting voice" in Decision Points when Powell, Tenent, and nearly every other high-ranking official who has spoke about the situation says otherwise. That speaks to perhaps a more devious nature behind the decision IMO.

The fact is, we went to Iraq based on, at best, shoddy intelligence, and at worst, deliberately misleading propagands. It's cost trillions of dollars and thousands of soldiers lives and is a huge black eye on this country. I'm generally one who thinks/thought W. took too much heat during his Presidency, but that is one that will stain his legacy forever.

But, rest assured, people will come on here to defend Bush/the decision to go to Iraq stricly based on the fact he has an R next to his name in 3...2...1...

Oh c'mon Wedge....quoting an article in the HuffPo gets you negative points for extreme bias. It's no secret that Powell was not happy that his credibility took a hit when he vouched for Iraq having WMD, but he was just as responsible as the others in "selling" the need for war. Condi Rice is completely honest about it....4 out of 5 intelligence agencies reported that they were almost certain Saadam had WMD....and it was unanimous that he could have them within a year. That was backed up by the British and other allied intelligence reports. More importantly, WMD was a media fabricated position that the Bush administration was forced to 'answer' to. There were many reasons the Bush administration decided to go to war, ...the posibility/probability of WMD being only one of the reasons...but the one facet that the media defined(and continues to define) as the litmus test.

But he also concludes that “every senior U.S. official would have made the exact same case,” He adds: “I get mad when bloggers accuse me of lying -- of knowing the information was false. I didn’t.”

The policymakers acted on the information provided.

The case for the war on Iraq was more than WMD of which there was a high probability that he had or could have within a short time. Sadaam was a wild card in the region that had used WMD on his own people, attacked his neighbors, drawn the U.S into conflict twice previously.He was systematically violating every aspect of the peace accord he signed in 1991, including refusal to allow U.N. arms inspectors for over 4 years, and routinely shooting at allied aircraft patrolling the No-Fly zone nder U.N. authority. He was at the center of a plot to assasinate a former U.S. president. Sanctions that were put in place to limit his ambitions were crumbling under international corruption. It was confirmed that at least in one case, he was harboring AlQaida within his borders.

There is no way to determine what the world would look like today if Sadaam had been allowed to continue.
If there is anything to really complain about, it is in the post war management of Iraq once Sadaam was removed from power.

:laugh:

There is no way to determine what the world would look like today if Sadaam had been allowed to continue.

He did keep Iran in line.

When he fell, they became greatly emboldened in the region and their influence grew tremendously.

He was a bad guy for sure, but the bungling of Iraq basically gave Iran a clear path to a Nuke as we took out their greatest enemy as well as taking a viable regime change threat off the table as everyone knows now that we can't sustain an Iraq like effort in Iran because of the toll it took on our military. We are just stretched too thin now.

The rise of Iran was the greatest unintended consequence of ousting Saddam.

HitsRus;1166461 wrote:Oh c'mon Wedge....quoting an article in the HuffPo gets you negative points for extreme bias. It's no secret that Powell was not happy that his credibility took a hit when he vouched for Iraq having WMD, but he was just as responsible as the others in "selling" the need for war. Condi Rice is completely honest about it....4 out of 5 intelligence agencies reported that they were almost certain Saadam had WMD....and it was unanimous that he could have them within a year.

First, there are 16 intel agencies...not 5. Secondly, there is a timeline and a history behind the pretext for war, the run up to war, and the war itself. What you fail to understand is that these intelligence agencies had nothing...no proof....not a shred of living evidence that A. linked Al Quada to Saddam as was force fed to the American people on national TV and B. That there was any evidence whatsoever that Saddam had WMD. In fact...the opposite was confirmed by UN inspectors just a month or so after Powell's speech. Does the name Muhammed El Barradei ring a bell? well, those that followed such things back then knew who he was and what he stated...Saddam had nothing.

The intel agencies based their "proof" on the testimony of 2 Iraqi dissidents...a dude code named Curve Ball and a shmuck named Ahmed Chelabi...both absolute liars...who...through word of mouth claimed to know the inside scoop on Saddam's shenanigans. And that was it...2 sources...all hearsay...and taken as Gospel truth in selling that war to the following.

A. The Congress. Congressmen had no clue what the basis was. They were lied to.
B. The military and the new inductees.....They were hoodwinked and lied to
c. The American people. Were told such garbage that Al Quada and Saddam were in cahoots in order to sell their precious war.

Not gonna waste any more band space, but sorry Hits, you are absolutely in the dark regarding this sorbid capsule of our history.

That was backed up by the British and other allied intelligence reports. More importantly, WMD was a media fabricated position that the Bush administration was forced to 'answer' to. There were many reasons the Bush administration decided to go to war, ...the posibility/probability of WMD being only one of the reasons...but the one facet that the media defined(and continues to define) as the litmus test.

I would suggest that you review the Downing Street Memos and then you would understand that they based their "theory" strictly on the US intelligence compounded by the rasdical assertion that Saddam attempted to buy yellowcake uranium from Nigeria. All proven to be fabricated lies to sell those I forementioned above. I will give you this...there were other reasons for slaughtering hundreds of thousands of Iraqis beyond WMD. It ties into the neoconservative ideology that only intervention and occupation, death and destruction is the only method to show our exceptionalism and lust for global empire. Well Hits....we have it. And 3 trillion dollars later, we continue to have it.

But make noooo mistake about it...this collossal debacle was manifistated through lie after lie after lie...whereby the intelligence was fixed to fit the agenda...and only the threat of nukes and other WMD's would push the congress over the edge to give Bush and his cabel of thugs the ability to attack whoever they wanted, whenever they wanted. The end game be damned.

The policymakers acted on the information provided

No. That is patently false as demonstrated by Lt. Wilkerson, and a whole host of others in the Cabinet that have proven that they intel was manipulated and distorted to reach their goal...the truth be damned. Now you want to cry about the source. We are not talking about an editorial here Hits...we are talking about direct citations from Powell's book. If you want to downplay the link I listed, then point your grievances at Powell...not Huffpo. I would also suggest that you search the net for other sources...and then, read Powell's book. I've been waiting 5 years for the man to come clean. And conscience has finally taken hold.

The case for the war on Iraq was more than WMD of which there was a high probability that he had or could have within a short time.

Absolutely false. Post desert storm, American inspectors had boots on the ground in Iraq ensuring all chem weapons and the like be accounted for and destroyed. Monthly reports from these 2 US agencies in Iraq (google scott ritter] made it clear...Saddam had no WMD....period.

Sadaam was a wild card in the region that had used WMD on his own people, attacked his neighbors, drawn the U.S into conflict twice previously.

He killed Kurdish Iraqis, but he never killed his own people...as in Sunnis. Saddam was a slimeball for sure...but no different than other brutal dictators in that region. And remember...we did not sell this lie to the American public that Saddam was a bad dude...we sold the war on the premise that Al Quaeda and Saddam were BFF...and nothing could be further from the truth..and our intelligence...all 16 branches knew it...before we bombed them in March of 03.

He was systematically violating every aspect of the peace accord he signed in 1991, including refusal to allow U.N. arms inspectors for over 4 years, and routinely shooting at allied aircraft patrolling the No-Fly zone nder U.N. authority.

Saddam did not kick out the inspectors until 1998, after Clinton dropped bombs. Then and only then did he kick out the UN and American inspectors. Yet, you make no mention of the fact that Saddam let the inspectors back in 4 months prior to Bush's onslaught. During those 4 months, Saddam Hussein gave unbridled access to every nook and cranny of his land...proving that he had no WMD. Bush and his cabel of neonuts would have none of it. Carnage be damned. He was gonna destroy hundreds of billions of dollars in infrastructure, kill hundreds of thousands of Iraqi citizens, lose thousands of our troops...all because
his band of lying warmongers needed to throw a shitty country against the wall..in order to tell the world we mean business. 3 trillion down the rathole...and counting..with a national debt of 15.6 trillion today. 42000 American troops maimed for life who will need permanent tax payer money so that they can walk around on their steel poled legs and arms, or who have permanent shrapnel embedded in their brains.

It was confirmed that at least in one case, he was harboring AlQaida within his borders.

And this allegation is one of the biggest whoppers out there.... Fact: Al Quada was never "harbored" by Saddam Hussein...ever. Al Quada and Saddam were polar opposites and they hated each other. What you have referenced is an incident whereby Al Quada entered the far northeastern corner of the country far from the reach of Saddam's control. It was proven to be yet another horrible misconception in connecting Saddam with 9-11. Hits...you need to research that allegation...because it has been buried by facts that are 180 degrees counter to what you claim.

There is no way to determine what the world would look like today if Sadaam had been allowed to continue.
If there is anything to really complain about, it is in the post war management of Iraq once Sadaam was removed from power.

The world in that part of the world would be ten times better than what we have left it as today...a complete cesspool...full of widows and orphans...with over 18% of the citizenry forced into exile to live as nomads in neighboring countries. The infrastructure is a pile of shit, bombed to the ground by our military. Most of Iraq does not have clean water to drink...and their standard of living has been slashed in half.

Sorry....I've read wayyyy too many books and done way too much research on this subject. It's not right that these perceived "facts" remain embedded in the heads of even the smallest number of Americans. The neoconservative ideology is to blame...and if Romney wins, I look for 4 more wars and occupations in that region. National debt be god damned.

Footwedge;1166504 wrote:The neoconservative ideology is to blame...and if Romney wins, I look for 4 more wars and occupations in that region. National debt be god damned.

Sooooooooo.....you're saying Obama's a neocon?

VP Biden ripped Bush as well yesterday. Meanwhile, Bush has not uttered a critical word about any of them. Bush may have made some mistakes, but he has a lot more class Obama, Biden and Powell combined.

2kool4skool;1166467 wrote::laugh:

Ha, nice call.

Beating a dead horse here foot.
Come, on, no one was lied to.
The intelligence of doubt was never passed up the Intelligence agencies food chain.
It was a massive intelligence failure.
Yes, the Bush administration wanted to go to war, and yes they did cherry pick raw intelligence, but as to intelligence that said they were deadly wrong did not come.
Yes, the IAEA was there before the war. But, the Iraqi's didn't help themselves. The IAEA said there was nothing there, but they still wanted more time to look as they still had suspensions.

As to the U.S. intelligence agencies, since we hadn't been there since 1998, there IC had no real intelligence to go off of. The sources were ex-Iraqi's that had real agendas that any Intel Officer 101 should have seen. That intel overshadowed any other intel that lower levels of the IC created.

Looks, it was a failure of the internal analytical dissemination of the intelligence agencies that caused the massive failure. No one was lied to. It was just the information that was collected and given to them fit their point of view.

ptown_trojans_1;1167328 wrote:Beating a dead horse here foot.
Come, on, no one was lied to.
The intelligence of doubt was never passed up the Intelligence agencies food chain.
It was a massive intelligence failure.
Yes, the Bush administration wanted to go to war, and yes they did cherry pick raw intelligence, but as to intelligence that said they were deadly wrong did not come.
Yes, the IAEA was there before the war. But, the Iraqi's didn't help themselves. The IAEA said there was nothing there, but they still wanted more time to look as they still had suspensions.

As to the U.S. intelligence agencies, since we hadn't been there since 1998, there IC had no real intelligence to go off of. The sources were ex-Iraqi's that had real agendas that any Intel Officer 101 should have seen. That intel overshadowed any other intel that lower levels of the IC created.

Looks, it was a failure of the internal analytical dissemination of the intelligence agencies that caused the massive failure. No one was lied to. It was just the information that was collected and given to them fit their point of view.

The 9-11 Commission doesn't not agree with you; the DIA doesn't agree with you. The CIA doesn't agree with you, Neither does the FBI.

From wiki...all footnoted and sourced.......


Vice President Dick Cheney had told Meet the Press on December 9, 2001, that Iraq was harboring Abdul Rahman Yasin, a suspect in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing,[SUP][14][/SUP] and repeated the statement in another appearance on September 14, 2003, saying "We learned more and more that there was a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaida that stretched back through most of the decade of the '90s, that it involved training, for example, on BW and CW, that al-Qaida sent personnel to Baghdad to get trained on the systems that are involved. The Iraqis providing bomb-making expertise and advice to the al-Qaida organization. We know, for example, in connection with the original World Trade Center bombing in '93 that one of the bombers was Iraqi, returned to Iraq after the attack of '93. And we’ve learned subsequent to that, since we went into Baghdad and got into the intelligence files, that this individual probably also received financing from the Iraqi government as well as safe haven."[SUP][15][/SUP] and once again in an interview with National Public Radio in January, 2004, stating that there was "overwhelming evidence" of a relationship between Saddam and al-Qaeda based on evidence including Iraq's purported harboring of Yasin.[SUP][16][/SUP]
In the same Meet the Press interviews, Cheney implied a connection between Iraq and Mohamed Atta; "The Czech interior minister said today that an Iraqi intelligence officer met with Mohammed Atta, one of the ringleaders of the September 11 terrorists attacks on the United States, just five months before the synchronized hijackings and mass killings were carried out."[SUP][14][/SUP] and "With respect to 9/11, of course, we’ve had the story that’s been public out there. The Czechs alleged that Mohamed Atta, the lead attacker, met in Prague with a senior Iraqi intelligence official five months before the attack, but we’ve never been able to develop any more of that yet either in terms of confirming it or discrediting it. We just don’t know."[SUP][15][/SUP] Czech officials have since backed off of this claim, and even Cheney has since acknowledged that the notion "that the meeting ever took place" has been "pretty well knocked down now."[SUP][17][/SUP] (See Mohamed Atta's alleged Prague connection.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein_and_al-Qaeda_link_allegations

Every statement made by Cheney here was absolutely known to be false at the time he spewed....as cited by the 4 agencies I listed above. And this is just the short list from Cheney. PTowne...you cannot say with a straight face that that admin didn't throw whoppers out there. Come on man. McEnroe would say..."you cannot be serious".

believer;1166506 wrote:Sooooooooo.....you're saying Obama's a neocon?

Of course he is. Bill Kristol even crowned him as one while praising Barack's adventures abroad.

Really Wedge....could you be anymore condescending? You are going to say I'm "in the dark"...that's rich coming from the guy who twice asserts that "16 intelligence agencies knew". Sorry Wedge....The number of U.S. intel agencies with the responsibility/capability of assesing WMD in Iraq and briefing the NSC was 5...that's F...I...V...E. and it was as I posted above. Whether Iraq had WMD, and whether there was a Sadaam/Alqaida link was a media event....and too much time and credibility was spent trying to justify the war to the skeptics, haters and the Michael Moores of this world who became Sadaam's apologists. Very simply put...Sadaam fucked with 3 administrations...both Republican and Democrat, was continually defying U.N. resolutions and becoming more and more brazen as he worked around the sanctions put in place in 1991. That's a dozen years of non-compliance after he attacked Kuwait.

Please get over the Bush lied about WMD crap. As you so aptly noted...Bill Clinton "dropped bombs" in 1998...why? because we Americans are eeevil? Was Bill in the "cabel of neonuts"? Bill Clinton can be linked to neocons about the same way Saddam could be linked to AlQaida. What Bill Clinton was...was President of the United States....same as George Bush...acting in what he thought was best for the country given the information at hand.

If you want to hate Bush's handling of the situation, that's fine...but do it for the right reasons. Everything you post about the waste of money/loss of life and deteriorated situation in Iraq was due to post war bungling...and non existing planning. That's some solid stuff to hate Bush for. But quite frankly, if the U.S. was out of Iraq in 2006/7...everything you've posted would be irrelevant.
I've often said that Bush's biggest mistake might have been that he put Powell in Foggy Bottom rather than the Pentagon.
I'll be interested to read Powell's account as he is the about the only principal that hasn't been heard from yet. His perspective should be interesting and enlghtening.

Look, you might be OCD over this, but I'm not going to spend any more time. I'm sorry I stepped into this cesspool.

HitsRus;1167554 wrote:If you want to hate Bush's handling of the situation, that's fine...but do it for the right reasons. Everything you post about the waste of money/loss of life and deteriorated situation in Iraq was due to post war bungling...and non existing planning. That's some solid stuff to hate Bush for. But quite frankly, if the U.S. was out of Iraq in 2006/7...everything you've posted would be irrelevant.

excellent and dead on

HitsRus;1167554 wrote: Whether Iraq had WMD, and whether there was a Sadaam/Alqaida link was a media event....and too much time and credibility was spent trying to justify the war to the skeptics, haters and the Michael Moores of this world who became Sadaam's apologists.

Nobody apologized for Saddam. the only apologizing going on around here is for Bush. I have posted the links...if you want to wallow in denial...that's your peragative. A "media event"? Is that what you call lying about the reasons for going to war? A media event? Maybe the 42,000 American soldiers who are either dead...or maimed for life have a little different view on what ia "media event" is.

You don't have a problem with fixing the intel to suit an agenda...well I do. You claim that the only error regarding Iraq was in the post occupation....well 68% of Americans don't agree with you...at all.

And you said this "to justify the war to the sceptics, haters, and the Michael Moores of the world" is one of the most vitriolic statements I've ever heard. Again, given what is know today, a full 68% of the American people have declared that the Iraq War was not worth it. Are 68% of Americans Muchael Moore clones? Do 68% of Americans hate their country? Are 68% of Americans Saddam apologists? These 68% do not cite the execution as you allege...but the entrance of it. Most people understand that when the CIA, the DIA, the FBI, the 9-11 Commission, the Iraqi Study Groups both 1 and 2 ALL CONFIRM that the pretext for this war was all hogwash, then it's quite telling what the mindset is of the teeny tiny minority still want to believe.

Very simply put...Sadaam fucked with 3 administrations...both Republican and Democrat, was continually defying U.N. resolutions and becoming more and more brazen as he worked around the sanctions put in place in 1991. That's a dozen years of non-compliance after he attacked Kuwait.

And all that is pretty....but none of what you listed was cited as the number one reason for wiping Iraq off the map. This war was sold on AlQuada/Saddam connections and WMD. Period. There is no way Bush and Company could have sold this war because Saddam was a bad dude. Sorry. wasn't gonna happen. As an aside, you are incorrect in stating that Saddam defied all UN resolutions. Are you suggesting that Americans and NATO were not in Iraq monitoring WMD's from 91 through 98? Or that Saddam was 100% compliant with the UN again in the 5 months prior to shock and awe?
"

Please get over the Bush lied about WMD crap.

I will never forgive the lying band of thugs that are responsible for the death and destruction in Iraq...100% caused by misdirecting and lying...confirmed by the Central Intelligence Agency, the Defense Intelligence Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the 9-11 Commission.

As you so aptly noted...Bill Clinton "dropped bombs" in 1998...why? because we Americans are eeevil?

And what a shame that anyone could somehow draw parallels between what Clinton did...and what Bush did. Incredible.

Was Bill in the "cabel of neonuts"?

Again, there is a hugggge difference between bombing targeted cites...vs wiping an entire country off the map.

Bill Clinton can be linked to neocons[/quotes] You need to understand what neoconservative ideology entails, because by your posts, you do not understand it at all.

about the same way Saddam could be linked to AlQaida.

I have posted the quotes made by Rice, Rumsfeld, and Cheney...and then linked articles confirming that they were lies... by our official declassified reports. It's still a free country...and as such, you can continue to believe what you want.

What Bill Clinton was...was President of the United States....same as George Bush...acting in what he thought was best for the country given the information at hand.

Clinton lied about a blow job...Bush and his gang grossly twisted the known intel in order to annihilate a country of 28 million people.

If you want to hate Bush's handling of the situation, that's fine...but do it for the right reasons. Everything you post about the waste of money/loss of life and deteriorated situation in Iraq was due to post war bungling...and non existing planning. That's some solid stuff to hate Bush for. But quite frankly, if the U.S. was out of Iraq in 2006/7...everything you've posted would be irrelevant.

In your view..irrelevant...In my view, extremely relevant. Moreover, given the history of our invading and occupying countries half way around the world had in place a clear and precise precedent that the cost of such nonsense has a huge price to pay. To suggest that the "orchestration" or "execution" post invasion is the real problem need to reread the history books on Vietnam. Your boys that orchestrated this debacle should be held accountable...and it's a shame that they never will be.

I'll be interested to read Powell's account as he is the about the only principal that hasn't been heard from yet. His perspective should be interesting and enlghtening.

Powell's perspective simply mirrors the perspective from many, many others. High ranking military personnel...such as Lt. Larry Wilkerson and Lt. Colonel Karen Kwiatowski broke ranks from the God awful "Office of Special Plans"...whose sole purpose was to invent intelligence to sell an unnecessary war.

Look, you might be OCD over this, but I'm not going to spend any more time. I'm sorry I stepped into this cesspool.

Don't worry Hits....you're a really good man...just because we debate something...even fiercely...doesn't change the fact that I'd buy you a beer any day of the week.:thumbup:

...Bush and his gang grossly twisted the known intel in order to annihilate a country of 28 million people.

Footwedge, I respect your beliefs on the war in Iraq.

Although I have stated many times that I never fully agreed with Bush's decision to enter Iraq, your hyperbole continues to blow my mind. "Annihilate a country of 28 million"? You imply that American forces have exterminated the Iraqi people. Absurd.

Eliminating Saddam Hussein from terrorizing his own people would be closer to the truth even if the pretenses for flushing him out may have stood on shaky ground.

Did Iraqis die because of our entry into their country? Sure. It's war. But to imply we annihilated the Iraqi people is crazy.

Should we have been there rather than concentrating on flushing out OBL and his Muslim terrorist minions in the Afghanistan mountains? Debatable and I would tend to say no.

Did Bush take faulty intelligence reports from several American and non-American intelligence agencies and fluff them up to "justify" the war on Saddam Hussein (not the Iraqi people)? Let's just say that 9-11 and Saddam's refusal to obey international law gave Bush a golden opportunity that he probably wouldn't have had without it. Nevertheless, given a choice I'd take the Bush neo-con leadership in a heartbeat over the debacle we're enjoying at the moment.

Your over-the-top hatred of the "Bush Neo-cons" is as ugly and as scary as the actions themselves.

I thought Clinton's perjury (blow job vs. twisted intel notwithstanding) should have gotten him kicked out of the WH. But it didn't happen and - guess what? - I've gotten over it. I suggest you do the same.

ok wedge...this doesn't sound like we are going to agree here...let's leave it at that.

Maybe Ubaldo, eh?

http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/images/blbushstatuetoppling.htm

believer;1168476 wrote:I thought Clinton's perjury (blow job vs. twisted intel notwithstanding) should have gotten him kicked out of the WH. But it didn't happen and - guess what? - I've gotten over it. I suggest you do the same.

Little easier to get over a guy lying about a blowjob(if you haven't lied about getting a blowjob, you haven't lived a full life) than an administration outright botching something that cost the country trillions of dollars and thousands of lives.

Also, could the "get over it" stance apply to Republicans hatred of Obama after he's reelected?

2kool4skool;1168882 wrote:Little easier to get over a guy lying about a blowjob(if you haven't lied about getting a blowjob, you haven't lived a full life)....

Kind of like if you can't handle your cocaine addiction you can't handle life?

2kool4skool;1168882 wrote:Also, could the "get over it" stance apply to Republicans hatred of Obama after he's reelected?

Absolutely. Repubs, conservatives, blue dog Dems, independents, and libertarians everywhere will dance a jig and breath a huge sigh of relief.

believer;1168476 wrote: "Annihilate a country of 28 million"?
.

That is exactly what we did. No hyperbole at all. Did we kill all the Japs in WWII?. Did we kill all the Germans? Of course not. But those countries were in fact annihilated...same as Iraq.

Now the circumstances were entirelt different in that Japan and Germany did in fact pose a threat. Iraq did not.

I will not get over it either. As a Christian, I see the death and destruction a horrible blight on our country's reputation. So yes...I blame America first. Until we realize that we are no longer the "good guys" in international behavior...and speak up about it...we will never change. For each additional pile of bloodshed that we create based on false pretenses or simple bad behavior, the bigger the bullseye we place on our own citizenry when really high technology becomes available for those that have had their people murdered...under the guise of "justifiable war".

Our reprehensible political behavior over the past 3.5 decades or so....has made it pretty clear to me. I seriously doubt that God is on our side.

To you..that's hyperbole. To me....it is standard human logic from an unbiased based thought process.

Footwedge;1169023 wrote:That is exactly what we did. No hyperbole at all. Did we kill all the Japs in WWII?. Did we kill all the Germans? Of course not. But those countries were in fact annihilated...same as Iraq.

Now the circumstances were entirelt different in that Japan and Germany did in fact pose a threat. Iraq did not.

I will not get over it either. As a Christian, I see the death and destruction a horrible blight on our country's reputation. So yes...I blame America first. Until we realize that we are no longer the "good guys" in international behavior...and speak up about it...we will never change. For each additional pile of bloodshed that we create based on false pretenses or simple bad behavior, the bigger the bullseye we place on our own citizenry when really high technology becomes available for those that have had their people murdered...under the guise of "justifiable war".

Our reprehensible political behavior over the past 3.5 decades or so....has made it pretty clear to me. I seriously doubt that God is on our side.

To you..that's hyperbole. To me....it is standard human logic from an unbiased based thought process.

annihilate

1. to reduce to utter ruin or nonexistence; destroy utterly
2. to destroy the collective existence or main body of; wipe out
3. to annul; make void
4. to cancel the effect of; nullify.
5. to defeat completely; vanquish

Iraq still exists. Saddam Hussein is dead. We have not wiped out the country. The Iraqi people have not been nullified nor is the country null & void.

The only thing that is true in that definition is that we did, in fact, completely defeat the Iraqi army and the Republican Guard.

You can attempt to play upon my "Christian sensibilities" all you want. I've gone on record as largely disagreeing with the decision to enter Iraq which you conveniently ignore.

I simply disagree with your exaggerated "eeeevil neo-con" mantra....IE: hyperbole.

God may not be on our side, but eliminating human vermin like Saddam Hussein and preventing him from terrorizing his own people and his neighbors is hardly immoral.

But, with all due respect, feel free to keep beating your overly zealous righteous dead horse.

believer;1168883 wrote:Kind of like if you can't handle your cocaine addiction you can't handle life?

Exactly.

Absolutely. Repubs, conservatives, blue dog Dems, independents, and libertarians everywhere will dance a jig and breath a huge sigh of relief.

You'll be relieved when Obama is reelected?

Footwedge;1169023 wrote:That is exactly what we did. No hyperbole at all. Did we kill all the Japs in WWII?. Did we kill all the Germans? Of course not. But those countries were in fact annihilated...same as Iraq.

Now the circumstances were entirelt different in that Japan and Germany did in fact pose a threat. Iraq did not.

I will not get over it either. As a Christian, I see the death and destruction a horrible blight on our country's reputation. So yes...I blame America first. Until we realize that we are no longer the "good guys" in international behavior...and speak up about it...we will never change. For each additional pile of bloodshed that we create based on false pretenses or simple bad behavior, the bigger the bullseye we place on our own citizenry when really high technology becomes available for those that have had their people murdered...under the guise of "justifiable war".

Our reprehensible political behavior over the past 3.5 decades or so....has made it pretty clear to me. I seriously doubt that God is on our side.

To you..that's hyperbole. To me....it is standard human logic from an unbiased based thought process.

annihilate

1. to reduce to utter ruin or nonexistence; destroy utterly
2. to destroy the collective existence or main body of; wipe out
3. to annul; make void
4. to cancel the effect of; nullify.
5. to defeat completely; vanquish

Iraq still exists. Saddam Hussein is dead. We have not wiped out the country. The Iraqi people have not been nullified nor is the country null & void.

The only thing that is true in that definition is that we did, in fact, completely defeat the Iraqi army and the Republican Guard.

You can attempt to play upon my "Christian sensibilities" all you want. I've gone on record as largely disagreeing with the decision to enter Iraq which you conveniently ignore.

God may not be on our side, but eliminating human vermin like Saddam Hussein and preventing him from terrorizing his own people and his neighbors is hardly immoral.

I simply disagree with your exaggerated "eeeevil neo-con" mantra....IE: hyperbole.

But, with all due respect, feel free to keep beating your overly zealous righteous dead horse.

2kool4skool;1169120 wrote:You'll be relieved when Obama is reelected?

If that happens (50/50 at best which is terrible odds for an incumbent POTUS) let's hope a Republican-controlled Congress will make his second term 4 years of lame duck futility.