bush is going down

[Mia]

Associated Press

Updated: 9:03 a.m. ET June 11, 2004 - A majority of American registered voters polled from across the nation now say conditions in Iraq did not merit war...

...Voters are increasingly concerned that Iraq is a quagmire America cannot escape, and they are doubtful that a democratic government will be established there, according to the poll published in Friday editions of the Times.

Fifty-three percent of respondents said the situation in Iraq did not merit war...

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5189004/

Originally posted by Mia, Associated Press Updated: 9:03 a.m. ET June 11, 2004 - A majority of American registered voters polled from across the nation now say conditions in Iraq did not merit war... ...Voters are increasingly concerned that Iraq is a quagmire America cannot escape, and they are doubtful that a democratic government will be established there, according to the poll published in Friday editions of the Times. Fifty-three percent of respondents said the situation in Iraq did not merit war... http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5189004/

So you people who are against the war are only against it for principle, right? The fact that it has saved more lives than it has taken will never be deciding factor and we won't hear anymore about the poor prisoners and the rest of pro Saddam minion march, right? I mean, after all, we have to make sure Saddam has the right to kill, torture and defile his own people. :rolleyes:

[Scribbler1]

Originally posted by URnotmeRU,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (URnotmeRU,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-Mia, Associated Press Updated: 9:03 a.m. ET June 11, 2004 - A majority of American registered voters polled from across the nation now say conditions in Iraq did not merit war... ...Voters are increasingly concerned that Iraq is a quagmire America cannot escape, and they are doubtful that a democratic government will be established there, according to the poll published in Friday editions of the Times. Fifty-three percent of respondents said the situation in Iraq did not merit war... http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5189004/

So you people who are against the war are only against it for principle, right? The fact that it has saved more lives than it has taken will never be deciding factor and we won't hear anymore about the poor prisoners and the rest of pro Saddam minion march, right? I mean, after all, we have to make sure Saddam has the right to kill, torture and defile his own people. :rolleyes:[/b][/quote]

I won't ask about the "if you are against the war you must like Saddam" tone of the post, but as to this war saving more lives than it has taken point, how do you arrive at this conclusion? Some facts would be nice.

[bishop]

personally, i'm not against the war - but i am extremely mad at bush because:

1. his claim that our soldiers would be greeted with flowers, not guns, has not materialized.
2. his claims about iraqi wmd were based off of bogus israeli intelligence and nonsense peddled by the neocons' favorite - chalabi.
3. his claim that iraqi oil would be used to pay for the reconstruction has not materialized and we continue to pay up the ass - including paying to give iraqis free healthcare (something denied to american taxpayers).
4. his claim that we would win additional support after the war has not materialized. instead, we've seen the loss of coalition support.
5. he never established that iraq posed an imminent threat, and therefore, this was an illegal war according to our treaty of membership with the united nations (a blatant violation of domestic law).
6. insufficient troop numbers were sent in - which has led to low troop morale (i can show you a survey conducted by stars and stripes if you don't believe me) and violations of the geneva convention (abu gahraib).
7. pre-war disasters on the diplomatic front. an unbridled don rumsfeld pushed even our closest alies (britain, canada, spain) to become extremely pissed off.

[Compugasm]

There should be a rule. No more MSNBC polls. Actually, NO online polls.

Scribbler needs a one on one lesson about what the man Saddam Hussein was all about and his shady past. Apparently Scribbler thinks Saddam was the answer.


You need stats? Look up Saddam and his regime on Google.

[Sonart]

So you people who are against the war are only against it for principle, right?

Absolutely, why else would we be opposed to it? Especially considering that I SUPPORTED the invasion of Afghanistan.

I opposed the war because:

1. The United States does not make unilateral, pre-emptive wars of agression. That's what dictators do. Nor do we make war on a helpless, burned out husk of a nation. Even a year and a half ago I simply could not understand how anyone thought that, after Desert Storm, Desert Fox and 12 years of sanctions and inspections, Hussein had any kind of serious weapons programs.

2. I did not believe for a second that WMD was the reason for making war. I assumed Bush thought this, in the wake of 9/11, was a convenient time to do what they'd apparently wanted to do for some time, kick the shit out of nasty old Iraq in order to intimidate the rest of the Mideast.

3. I knew why George Bush #41 did not pursue Hussein to Baghdad. Occupying a large hostile nation in the middle of an even more hostile middle east was an invitation to quagmire. It was like the lessons of Vietnam, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and our tour of Somalia were suddenly swept from everyone's memory by some sort of massive mind meld.

4. After being sobered by both Bush and Powell's addresses to the UN, when the 'evidence' began falling apart within days I began to angrily realize that we'd been hoodwinked by fear into a Machiavelian mis-adventure.



But what completely amazes me about your post, UR, is how in gawd's name you arrived at the conclusion that we have SAVED more lives than were lost by invading Iraq? It sure as hell wasn't American lives.

[Comrade]

Originally posted by Sonart, Absolutely, why else would we be opposed to it? Especially considering that I SUPPORTED the invasion of Afghanistan. I'm sure that makes you completely objective I opposed the war because: 1. The United States does not make unilateral, pre-emptive wars of agression. That's what dictators do. Nor do we make war on a helpless, burned out husk of a nation. Even a year and a half ago I simply could not understand how anyone thought that, after Desert Storm, Desert Fox and 12 years of sanctions and inspections, Hussein had any kind of serious weapons programs. Unilateral? So long as France, Germany, and Russia didn't support us, we don't count the 2 dozen countries that did? You are correct, we don't make war on a helpless, burned out husk of a nation. We make wars on dictators. 2. I did not believe for a second that WMD was the reason for making war. I assumed Bush thought this, in the wake of 9/11, was a convenient time to do what they'd apparently wanted to do for some time, kick the shit out of nasty old Iraq in order to intimidate the rest of the Mideast. Yes, Bush is just a really mean guy who hates sand-niggers :/ 3. I knew why George Bush #41 did not pursue Hussein to Baghdad. Occupying a large hostile nation in the middle of an even more hostile middle east was an invitation to quagmire. It was like the lessons of Vietnam, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and our tour of Somalia were suddenly swept from everyone's memory by some sort of massive mind meld. Incorrect, he didn't pursie Hussein to Baghdad because of pressure from our "allies. " Also, the 1991 war and the Iraqi war have little to do with the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and the war in Vietnam, both in how they are fought, why, and the objectives 4. After being sobered by both Bush and Powell's addresses to the UN, when the 'evidence' began falling apart within days I began to angrily realize that we'd been hoodwinked by fear into a Machiavelian mis-adventure. Too bad, and "Machiavellian mis-adventure" isn't politicized rhetoric or anything. Stop pretending outrage when you really just want to hate Bush But what completely amazes me about your post, UR, is how in gawd's name you arrived at the conclusion that we have SAVED more lives than were lost by invading Iraq? It sure as hell wasn't American lives. It would've cost less American lives to fight the revolution, stop the north koreans and chinese, let Nazi Germany conquer Europe, and defend South Vietnam against communism, too.

[Scribbler1]

Originally posted by URnotmeRU, Scribbler needs a one on one lesson about what the man Saddam Hussein was all about and his shady past. Apparently Scribbler thinks Saddam was the answer.

I need lesons on a lot of things, but nothing you are capable of teaching, unless you think insults and vague generalizations can pass for facts.

You need stats? Look up Saddam and his regime on Google.

I may do that, as you seem to have none to answer a legitimate question.

[Sonart]

I'm sure that makes you completely objective

Where is it written that I'm supposed to be, or even could be, completely objective? Are you? I told you I supported the Operation in Afghanistan -- what, that's not good enough for you? I can only have an informed opinion if I voted for the guy?

Unilateral?

Yes. Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Perle et al had been pushing for this war at least since 1998. Both Paul O'Neil and Richard Clarke testified that Bush was intent on war with Iraq long before 9/11. It didn't matter who was with us, they were gonna go to war with Iraq. Period.

You are correct, we don't make war on a helpless, burned out husk of a nation. We make wars on dictators.

Yeah right. Like Nicaragua's Somoza, Chile's Pinochet, Indonesia's Sukarno, the Phillipine's Marcos, Angola's Savimbe, El Salvadoran death squads, the Shah's Iran, Egypt's Mubarak, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. You betcha, we're the scourge of evil dictators everywhere. Tell ya what, the evilest dictator now is 90 miles off our shores in Havana. Shall we pencil Cuba in for invasion, or would that be a little tougher than 'ol toothless Saddam?

Yes, Bush is just a really mean guy who hates sand-niggers :/

No, you moron. Paul Wolfowitz stated it in his now infamous Vanity Fair interview. This was a chance to get our troops out of Saudi Arabia. Why were our troops in Saudi Arabia? Because Hussein's invasion of Kuwait in '90 was his first move of his dream of taking the Gulf Oil states - Bahrain, Qatar, the UAE and Saudi Arabia. As long as Hussein remained in power, Bush and Cheney perceived him as a potential threat to the oil region, although he clearly was not. By removing Hussein, we removed any hint of a threat to 60% of the world's oil reserves, as well as removing the bee in Osama bin Laden's panties... American troops on holy Saudi soil.

Additionally, by beating up Hussein, we could then turn to Syria, Iran, etc. and intimidate them into obedience, like we love to believe we did with Libya, force them to make peace with Israel, and then everyone could get back to the serious business of pumping cheap oil.

Alas, Bush and Rumsfeld's arrogant incompetence has done exactly the opposite, and the Mideast is more explosive than ever, with Saudi Arabia on the verge of being toppled by civil insurection.

Incorrect, he didn't pursie Hussein to Baghdad because of pressure from our "allies. " Also, the 1991 war and the Iraqi war have little to do with the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and the war in Vietnam, both in how they are fought, why, and the objectives.

Heck, Comrade, don't believe me. Here's Bush himself...

--" We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under those circumstances, there was no viable "exit strategy" we could see, violating another of our principles. Furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-Cold War world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the United Nations' mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression that we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different--and perhaps barren--outcome." --- George H.W. Bush and Brent Scowcroft, A World Transformed (1998), pp. 489-90

Sounds pretty damn precient to me, don't you think?

Also, the 1991 war and the Iraqi war have little to do with the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and the war in Vietnam, both in how they are fought, why, and the objectives

I didn't say Desert Storm. I supported that war from the gitgo too. Soviet Afghanistan and Vietnam were examples of two massively armed super powers attempting to occupy hostile countries whose nationalism drove a primative insurgent resistance, supplied from outside, to lose millions of lives over ten years in order to eventually win wars of attrition. Welcome to the intifada on steriods, another endless guerilla war smack in the middle of the Muslim world, supplied from three sides with fighters who want absolutely nothing more out of life than to kill Americans.

Too bad, and "Machiavellian mis-adventure" isn't politicized rhetoric or anything.

Actually it sounds pretty acurate to me. I've called it prison yard politics... find the baddest prisoner in the yard, beat the crap out of him and then turn to the rest of the yard and ask who wants to be next. 9/11 turned out to be a convenient way to scare Americans into supporting a policy Boy George and the Neo-Cons were intent on pursuing from day one.

Stop pretending outrage when you really just want to hate Bush

No, that's how the conservative mind works, not ours. You're the ones who spent 7 years manufacturing one Clinton unscandal after another out of pure hatred. Don't go projecting your motives on everyone else.

It would've cost less American lives to fight the revolution, stop the north koreans and chinese, let Nazi Germany conquer Europe, and defend South Vietnam against communism, too.

Beg pardon? You forsaw Iraq conquering the known world, did you? Sorry, but Rumsfeld himself said the other day we're currently losing the war on terrorism. We're not saving lives, we're throwing them away by the hundreds.

[Comrade]

You said you supported the war in Afghanistan to give some sense of objectivity (see, look, I CAN support wars).

I don't understand why having the war already planned makes us unilateral. Do you mean even if we got France, Russia, and Germany's approval and support, it would still be unilateral?

As for Cuba being harder, yeah. If you were a politician, do you think Americans would support wars in jungles and places we've been defeated before? We are in a country that we beat soundly and people are still saying it's another Vietnam. What if we actually went to Vietnam? You've mistaken me for a friend of Bush's. I WOULD support attacks on those people. It's hardly my fault that anyone hasn't yet.

The Soviets were trying to CONQUER. We are not.

Machiavellian --
This is something I've asked before....Why? Is is the whole petrodollar thing that makes these horrible republican warmongers so eager for blood and death? Nobody answered me in that thread.

My motives? I'm glad you know me so well. You've mistaken me as a friend of Bush's again. I'm just trying to keep the BS out.

Throwing lives away by the hundreds, I guess all we can do is give up then, huh. I've got a solution though: Maginot Line. We obviously need our own.
Also, you deliberately misinterpreted why I stated those examples.

[PatrickHenry]

Originally posted by Comrade, The Soviets were trying to CONQUER. We are not.

A lot you know. Ever hear the word naivete?

[Comrade]

I guess I'm just a sheep being led by the nose by the mass media, huh? That's one easy way to dismiss my opinions.

By the way, I'm entirely correct in saying that the Soviet belligerency in Afghanistan was of a different nature than our conflict in Iraq.

[PatrickHenry]

Why would you attribute noble motives to the robbers in Washington, DC? Just because they speak American? You think they are just as humane as you?

[Comrade]

Because I have yet to read a logical arguement as to why evil Bush is "bombing thousands of Iraqi children." And when I hear rhetoric like that, I see it as the BS it is, and it makes me more willing to believe the other side. I'd have no problem believing our elected leaders are inhumane, if there were some sort of evidence and logical reasoning behind it.
So far, the Petro-Dollar vs. Euro arguement is the only one I've read that even attempts to explain why we are Iraq, if not to liberate Iraqis, and I know well enough that I know little enough of economics to verify whether that holds water or not.
Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty?

[PatrickHenry]

Ever check out the PNAC stuff? Brzezinsky's The Grand Chessboard? How about roxdog's G-8/NWO thread? If it doesn't make sense, keep turning it 'til it does...

[Comrade]

Why not just spell it out simply for the New World Order newbie?

[PatrickHenry]

It ain't simple, man. And I'm not a know-it all. I don't think anybody is. Ya gotta put it together for yourself. Example: Order of Skull and Bones. Why are both of the major parties running a guy who was one of 15 inducted per year into a society that is ultra secret? My advice if you are curious about stuff is read books. Anthony Sutton is a credible researcher. Example: The State of Emergency. Why did you not ever hear of this in school or the mass media? A declared state of emergency giving all power to the executive for 71 years? What happened to constitutional government? Example: the income tax and the national debt. Who profits and who pays? Example: the mass media. Why are certain subjects off limits and how is communication controlled and for whose benefit?

[PatrickHenry]

You want an overview that really has a long range perspective? Try Treason: The New World Order by Gurudas. It's all there.

[giuliano]

iraq isn't a unique proposition for explaining US motivations. the US has long shown keen interest in the ME, and iraq is no exception and no different.

the US is "friends" with various regimes such as saudi arabia, kuwait, turkey and others in that uncomfortable way that their leaders would rather be standing behind the gun than looking down the barrel.

what is the US's interest in the ME? it's no different than those of superpowers right through the 20th century.

for any intelligent person who can look further back into history than the last 5 years, there is a clear pattern of behaviour and this nothing new, just more of the same.