[Scribbler1]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,)
S1

-Now, in the Iraq situation, we were told by Bush and Blair that Saddam Hussein HAD WMDs and was planning to use them against us and could send them to our countries in a little over a half-hour.

so did clinton and the rest of the democrat senators and representatives before bush was elected and used that as justification to bomb iraq and kill people...

-When that didn't fly, they said he HAD WMDs and defied UN resolutions to destroy them.

bush used the same intelligence and resolution excuse that clinton did... and the resolutions were defied...<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

So you're blaming Clinton now? For the sake of argument only, I'll assume Clinton had the same intelligence Bush supposedly had. If that's the case, then Clinton obviously knew there was no reason to invade, and he didn't have Cheney pulling his strings.


-So far, nothing has been found

<<yes it has, but you don't want to admit it... and more will be found shortly...>>

Well, I guess you know more than our own military, international observers, and even members of Bush's own administration. In that case, I'd love to hear where they are since only you seem to know they exist. Poor Bush! If he only had you to point them out for him, he could sell this war a lot more easily.
As far as not wanting to admit it, I'd be a fool not to admit it if they had been found, just as I'd be a fool to say they are there when no one else has found them.


-in light of compelling evidence that going to war with Iraq was unprovoked and unneccessary,

<<<wrong, it was provoked and neccessary... it is a continuation and amplification of actions begun by clinton...>>>

Clinton again, eh? You must be extatic now that Rush is back! Clinton didn't start a war that is unwinable at this point, and denounced by a good portion of the world.


-how the hell do you reach the point where you are not supporting our troops if you don't want them getting KILLED in a war we shouldn't have engaged in in the first place.

<<<no one wants our troops killed but if you think we will win by pulling out you will have proven osama's mogadishu theory of american military resolve correct... that isn't going to happen... iraq is simply the first step...>>>

Too bad you didn't bother to read my whole post. Yes, I did say we shouldn't have gone there but I also said we are stuck in it now. I'm well aware that Bin Laden said we were a "paper tiger" when we pulled out of somalia, which is why we are mired in this, because leaving would make us look weak to the Arabs. I never said we should pull out. I have more than enough words in my mouth, please don't bother making up any for me.


-But in this case it's a load of crap, and our fellow citizens, as well as those of a few other countries are being killed for reasons no one in Washington has truly justified.

<<<it was justified and it is justified...>>>

By you and a lot of others, and about as many disagree. I love that kind of retort you gave. Short and to the point. Also devoid of any substance whatsoever.



-My opinion is that they should NEVER have been placed in harms way this time, and that is why I believe NOT sending them to Iraq would have supported them.

<<<this is only the second battlefield in the war against terrorism... we will finish the job and expand the war...>>>

EXPAND the war?? Could you possible expand on that a little. C'mon, toss me a fact or two. Like how we can expand what we haven't finished, or just where these metaphorical battlefields are?

<<<the military's job is to kill people and to break things... that's what they do... they are doing their job wonderfully... does the military face risk while doing their job? sure, and some more than others... how would you support them? by giving them the best means to do their job, not by removing work from them...>>

Did you use a highlighter on your screen when you read my post? I said we had the best weapons and firepower. As for the troops, I assumed the fact that they are the best trained at what they do was understood by most and unnecessary to elaborate on. And to end the sentence with "not by removing work from them" is disgusting. The military is there for OUR protection and not the misguided or misinformed whims of an administration who thought Iraq would be a quick and much praised war.

G

-I obviously don't want to see the soldiers killed, but neither do I want them killing civillians, nor guerillas who are taking up arms on behlaf of their people.

<<<you mean the new iraqi guerillas who are being trained as police and security to take our place when we leave? or do you mean the remaining terrorist thugs who are still following the baath party and saddam's wishes?>>>

I'm not going to argue your point there. I don't know how the hell we can just dive in and say "well, here's your country back, now govern yourselves" to a population who grew up knowing nothing about self-governance. But for police and security, I don't know if they are Baathist thugs or terrorists any more than you do, but I don't believe that is the aim of the Bush Administration to put terrorists in positions of policing the country. BTW, if we're doing such a great job over there, why do you think there ARE enough of Saddam's boys left to pose any threat? And why do you think they are being trained to be police by US?


(Note to Sean: we should have some structure rules regarding multi-warhead rebuttals by people, so the original poster can address all the points without muddying up the reply, like this one will surely look.)