Sure, just ask W.

• Posted: 2008-08-20T11:30:46Z

Hey, it was him or Saddam. What do you want?

• Posted: 2008-08-20T12:48:56Z

S-J, Really? You’ll have to forgive me as I’m having a very difficult time remembering anything W has ever said that was reassuring. Guess I was hoping his legacy was beginning to develop.

• Posted: 2008-08-20T14:46:23Z

Humph, I believe that was sarcasm on the part of S_J. Though I think Mr. Toles is opening the door on this one real bad, as bin Laden was around during the Clinton administration too, so he already has outlasted a President. Of course, if you dig deeper, you’ll see the Reagan administration pretty much installed him in the first place, so there’re even more to count.

• Posted: 2008-08-20T16:57:43Z

Hey LTTG You”ve some good points but remember sarcasm comes in more than one flavor.

• Posted: 2008-08-20T21:29:56Z

So that means then that we’re all ok with invading Pakistan, a nation with 170 million Muslims who have nukes BTW (iraq 30 million and not a cakewalk to be sure) to capture one man so he can have an even bigger circus of a trial than Saddam had?

• Posted: 2008-08-20T22:35:40Z

No full invasion needed; a series of surgical strikes and covert operations into northwest Pakistan, making it clear we’re keeping away from Islamabad, would suffice.

Not all military operations, or even invasions, require conquest. A great example is Serbia/Yugoslavia in 1999, where not one US soldier marched on Belgrade, yet all goals were accomplished, down to the Serbs eventually bringing down Slobodan Milosevich. Also showing just how superior Bill Clinton was as a President.

• Posted: 2008-08-21T01:57:56Z

It’s this little Moonbat principle you guys on the fringe-right wouldn’t understand, Stew. ( or rather, couldn’t care less about. )

It’s called, “Justice for the 9/11 victims.”

And BTW, I don’t recall Ramzi Yousef, the mastermind of the FIRST World Trade Center attack becoming a cause celebre when *he* went on trial.

And Humphries, yes, I was being sarcastic.

• Posted: 2008-08-21T02:55:51Z

Why are the liberals on this board acting like we are NOT also in Afghanistan? Also, what’s the solution then, fight Pakistan? I thought you guys were against fighting our enemies?

• Posted: 2008-08-22T22:55:48Z

Reality Check: After 9/11, Iraq stopped being our prime enemy, if our enemy at all; this is the ultimate reason the invasion of 2003 was so ridiculous.

Leaving our business in Afghanistan, the place we actually have some legitimacy to be in, unfinished is the ultimate reason OBL is still alive and mocking us. Yes, it’s also an excellent base for launching covert operations on Pakistan’s west regions.

• Posted: 2008-08-24T01:01:41Z

So because Iraq was no longer our “prime enemy” that means they weren’t our enemy at all?
Think about it, (not with foresight either) If an evil regime like Saddam’s was rumored to be working on chemical and nuclear weapons and refused to let the U.N. (not only America) check up on it, wouldn’t that ALSO be a huge threat to us? As big as Osama bin Laden even?
You also seem to forget that it wasn’t only America that invaded Iraq.

• Posted: 2008-08-24T20:16:43Z

Iraq: the ultimate waste of resources at the worst possible time.

Yes, we checked up on those rumored chemical/biological, found nothing, and still invaded.

The infamous nuclear program is a joke to anyone who knows how ridiculously hard it is to make nuclear weapons; to think Iraq could have made any nuclear weapons under the slightest scrutiny is just dumb.

As big as OBL? The Kurds had created their own republic in the north since 1995, unopposed; Saddam’s Iraq was pathetically weak.

As for those “other nations,” a token force that has come to regret ever taking part in this injustice. Georgia (who sent 2000 troops) got the ultimate karmic blast, getting their own sovereignty violated this summer; I actually got a laugh out of that.

+1 million Iraqis dead.
+4 million Iraqi refugees.
A nation unnecessarily robbed of its freedom.

We may just be getting some semblance of justice starting November.

• Posted: 2008-08-25T01:51:19Z

“As big as OBL? The Kurds had created their own republic in the north since 1995, unopposed; Saddam’s Iraq was pathetically weak.”

If by unopposed you mean gassed and stuffed into mass graves then sure…

As for the “justice in November” bit. Your Messiah has already flipped flopped on his whole pull out Iraq immediately plan so don’t even try it. Turns out he’ll leave forces there even after the main forces are pulled out. All that sounds like to me is more Iraqi deaths because of the bloodbath that will occur when we aren’t there to stop it.

• Posted: 2008-08-25T03:14:44Z

Number of times Kurds were gassed by Iraq since 1995: 0

Nice try, though; shows a 1991 mindset.

So much for “flip-flops,” there are no indications the 16 brigades in 16 months plan won’t be put into action.

Also, “the bloodbath that will occur when we aren’t there to stop it” is a nice White Man’s Burden fantasy, but fact things settled down when we “abandoned” Anbar Province showed the reality of a post-US Iraq.

This still not covering the inherent wrongness of unjustly invading a sovereign nation; there just might be reservations being made at The Hague come November.

• Posted: 2008-08-25T04:18:57Z

You keep on believing that Bush is going to be tried in the Hague buddy. I also heard they caught a dead bigfoot. If the Hague was going to try anyone for “war crimes” then they’d have to try every Senator that voted to go to war as well as the British parliment and those of our allies so basically it’s never going to happen. Also, might have to do with the fact that no war crimes were commited..I guess I could of just said that instead and saved space.

• Posted: 2008-08-25T11:21:24Z

Oooh, where to start!:

Reality Check 1: That Senate vote was to approve “action,” there was nothing approving invasion-and-occupation.

Reality Check 2: Most Democratic Senators voted against it anyway; inversely, all Republicans voted for it (IIRC, except Chuck Hagel).

Reality Check 3: Just telling from Colin Powell’s UN testimony, proof is already piling up for false evidence to justify the action.

+1 million dead Iraqis.
+4 million Iraqi refugees.

It ain’t just Bush, the whole bunch that planned this will likely go down. I just wonder if they’ll need a wheelchair ramp for the gallows in Charles Krauthammer’s case. I normally abhor the death penalty, but in this case … hang ‘em high!

• Posted: 2008-08-25T15:12:11Z

Only 23 Senators voted against this “action” (what in the world you think “action” means is beyond me.) So don’t give me that tired old lie about most Democrats not voting for Iraq it’s bunk and everyone knows it.

Same thing goes for this supposed “false evidence” claim of yours. I guess all that yellow cake uranium found in Al—Tuwaitha was just there for decoration right?

Try to include some reality with your “reality checks” next time.

• Posted: 2008-08-25T21:31:29Z

You admit 23 Senators voted against it, all Democrats (if you count Jim Jeffords)! Yes, there were voices who stood against the insanity.

Indeed, “action” was so vague as to mean anything, and with previous “action” limited to air strikes, there was no reason to believe someone would be so insane as to actually carry out a full scale invasion and occupation.

Oh, and that “found” yellowcake had been known about since at least 2002; it was also just that, yellowcake uranium, NOT a WMD! It is no more a nuclear weapon than a pile of bauxite is a 747. Let me repeat, false evidence!

It’s called reality, try get back to it.

• Posted: 2008-08-26T03:42:50Z

The decision to invade Iraq was made during the Clinton years first off, and that act ACKNOWLEDGED that Iraq had chemical and biological weapons, so once again you are completely wrong. Don’t give me anything like “chemical and biological weapons aren’t WMDs!” either, a biological-filled scud missle launched at the right place would kill thousands if not hundreds of thousands…mass destruction enough for me.

Regime change (as stated specifically in the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998) was always our solution for Iraq and Bush was following what was already a Congressional policy. So if you truly believe that when they voted for “action” against Iraq that they “had no idea it meant full scale invasion” you are beyond all hope and reason. Don’t attempt to talk to me about Iraq again until you read the ENTIRE Iraq Liberation Act of 1998.

Also, 23 votes for “no” is not the majority that you claimed the Democrats voted against the invasion of Iraq.

• Posted: 2008-08-28T01:32:50Z

The invasion of Iraq is still as wrong as it will be one hundred years from now in history books, but Bobby just keeps digging!

Oh, and I’ll keep talking about Iraq so long as I can keep talking! I will keep challenging this evil so long as I can.

Anyway, beyond Reality Checks, on to “How Wrong is ConservativeBob? (HWIC: like coughing up phlegm!)”

HWIC 1: “The decision to invade Iraq was made during the Clinton years first off, and that act ACKNOWLEDGED that Iraq had chemical and biological weapons,”

Sorry, just because a government act “acknowledges” something doesn’t make it true. The government once “acknowledged” ketchup as a vegetable! Said act was also made in 1998, before air strikes that whatever remnants of WMDs left in Iraq, if there were any.

HWIC 2: “Don’t give me anything like “chemical and biological weapons aren’t WMDs!” either,”

Apparently CB can’t read either! I was talking about yellowcake uranium, as a simple scroll-up would show. I guess he’s still looking up what bauxite is (aluminum ore); maybe he should look up what yellowcake is, as he clearly doesn’t seem to know.

HWIC 3: “a biological-filled scud missle launched at the right place would kill thousands if not hundreds of thousands…mass destruction enough for me.”

Sure … if it existed (it didn’t). Maybe if we’d listened to Hans Blix and Scott Ritter.

HWIC 4: “Regime change (as stated specifically in the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998) was always our solution for Iraq and Bush was following what was already a Congressional policy.”

Number of US soldiers that marched on Belgrade = 0. Regime change still achieved.

HWIC 5: “So if you truly believe that when they voted for “action” against Iraq that they “had no idea it meant full scale invasion” you are beyond all hope and reason.”

Never mind my mention of proper regime change, considering the events that happened between 1998 and 2002, at that point the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 was beyond obsolete.

I officially rate CB’s wrongness at eight wingnuts out of 10!

Oh, and while I’ll admit I was wrong about the Senate thing (must have mistaken it with the House vote), it doesn’t change the fact
23 Senators stood up against the insanity.

• Posted: 2008-08-28T15:12:18Z

“Oh, and I’ll keep talking about Iraq so long as I can keep talking!”

Doesn’t make you any less wrong about it though.

The chemical and biological agents listed in the Act were PROVEN to be there as of 1998. Also, there were in fact scud missiles in Iraq. (I wonder what he was shooting at us during the bombings of the 90’s then if there wasn’t.) Put them both together and you have yourself a WMD. You say that of all that wasn’t valid by 2003, so I’m assuming they just went away? You seem to forget how evil Saddam was in your blind “I hate everything America does” fury.

Serbia was a much different story than Iraq is, for one Iraq is gigantic compared to Serbia. Iraq is also much less urbanized so bombing a bunch of nothing isn’t going to really do much, you’d have to send troops in to stabilize the country.

Three question I’d like to you ask and two of them are repeats that you didn’t answer before:

Was it right for Saddam to be taken out of power, regardless of whatever reasons were used to justify it?

What was there yellow cake uranium in Iraq for if not to develop nukes?

Also I have to ask you this again as well: Did you read the ENTIRE act or are you just going to give me more hearsay and no facts?

• Posted: 2008-08-29T03:23:43Z

This is fun! Let me ‘chime in’ like NBC now sez…

“Was it right for Saddam to be taken out of power, regardless of whatever reasons were used to justify it?”
-when the country is now in a worse state of affairs than before?? Hmmm, vexing…

“What was there yellow cake uranium in Iraq for if not to develop nukes?”
-why might their drug stores be stocking Metamucil too, if not to cook up some crystal meth?

• Posted: 2008-08-29T13:02:25Z

It’s 2008, I have to mention this since some people here seem to have lost track of time.

Not 1998, when that outdated bit of legislation was passed.

Not 1991, when the first invasion of Iraq destroyed most of their military, along with most of their WMDs and the equipment for it.

Not 1988, when Kurds were gassed, and the Iraq was a US ally.

Oh, and I see that “you hate everything America does” nonsense finally makes its debut, quite a wingnut classic! He’ll be shocked to find out I love the Peace Corps, along with other American projects, international or domestic.

Aaanyway, on to the show!:

Yup, if that report said WMDs were there in 1998, they must’ve been … of course, that’s before numerous air raids in 1999 and 2000 that did away with them, a fact conveniently ignored.

“so I’m assuming they just went away?”

Not so much “went away” as much as got blown to smithereens by American cruise missiles and smart bombs; sometimes people forget President Clinton didn’t let up on Saddam, and actually knew how to do it right.

Oooh, and questions!:

“Was it right for Saddam to be taken out of power, regardless of whatever reasons were used to justify it?”

Hell no! That “ends justify the means” BS is fine for tyrants, not for us. If he had to be taken out of power, there were countless other ways, (see Serbia; and no, a minor size difference is irrelevant) none involving the lunacy of a full-blown invasion.

“What was there yellow cake uranium in Iraq for if not to develop nukes?”

Nothing. After 1991 it had been sealed away, the equipment required to refine it no longer available, and any chance of doing that impossible under international scrutiny, not to mention the lack of resources.

Really, some people have no idea how hard it is to make the material for a nuke. It took over 100,000 people (the vast majority having no idea what they were working on), facilities across the US like Hanford and Oak Ridge, and the melting of the entire US Treasury silver supply for magnets (since copper couldn’t be spared; if was returned after the war) among other things over three years to make just three bombs (Fat Man, Little Boy, and Gadget; the last being the initial Trinity test device to see if it would actually work).

“Also I have to ask you this again as well: Did you read the ENTIRE act or are you just going to give me more hearsay and no facts?”

No, though I might eventually if I find it. Reading this bit of OBSOLETE legislation with OUTDATED information to support it still seems irrelevant to people living in 2008, or even in 2003.

Let’s repeat:

Iraq invasion: WRONG!

WMDs in 2003: NONE!

Just the facts …

• Posted: 2008-08-29T22:28:37Z

First I want to say that typing may make both sides look “angry” but I just want to check that neither one of is. I rather enjoy this debate. (I don’t mean that sarcastically either.) We are doing what our do nothing Congress should be doing. So where were we? Ah, yes…

Who cares what time these things happened!? So If I kill a man 10 years ago does that make it ok because I promise never to do it again? Please that’s no excuse. Also, 5 years is not enough time for that act to be “outdated” especially since we got the entire truth about Iraq only after we invaded. It wasn’t outdated when we went in. Maybe if Saddam had just let those U.N. inspectors in with a proper such huh?

You claim that all of those missiles and biological weapons were “blown up”? That is just so ridiculous I’m not even going to address it.

I only brought out the “hate America” thing because you brought out that tired old “wingnut” tripe. Let’s agree to keep this discussion civil and not name call agreed?

So then..you can tell me that Iraq is not better off without Saddam then? We have done absolutely NO good in Iraq?

“Really, some people have no idea how hard it is to make the material for a nuke. It took over 100,000 people”

Right…that was to INVENT the nuke that was also over 60 years ago. Technology has jumped leaps and bounds since then and it’s much easier to build a nuke when you have the plans and the thing has been invented already. Who’s the real one living in the past?

Read the act you may find it interesting. Everyone is speaking with foresight into what was really going on in Iraq. We didn’t know for sure what they were capable of and we knew that Saddam was a totalitarian dictator killing his own people. He refused to assure us of any worries we had about him and we took action to protect ourselves. That seems reason enough for me and at the time the MAJORITY of the world.

• Posted: 2008-08-30T00:27:59Z

-Herbabee

“when the country is now in a worse state of affairs than before?? Hmmm, vexing…”

Had you wrote this in 2005 I would of agreed with you. Iraq is now much better off than it was with Saddam and will only continue to get better once their government is able to fully stabilize their country.

“why might their drug stores be stocking Metamucil too, if not to cook up some crystal meth?”

There’s a huge difference between a bunch of drug addicts looking to get high and a murderous dictator having the ingredients to make a nuclear weapon.

• Posted: 2008-08-30T00:31:27Z

1998 is not 2003
1998 is not 2003
1998 is not 2003

Sorry, amazingly, it seems this should-be-obvious bit of reality still hasn’t gotten through, so I figured that might work. Now, back to fighting ignorance (specifically, of the events of that five year period).

It’s not that I don’t care what happened to the Kurds, it’s that it’s up to them to decide. By 1995, they had moved on, effectively creating their own nation in the north (Kurdistan). For anyone outside of Iraq to think they have a say in this (at least without their word) is the height of arrogance.

We had the truth about Iraq from the likes of Scott Ritter and Hans Blix, it’s just that some people refused to listen, as that reality got in the way of their grand plans. UN inspectors (that had repeatedly gone in) never found anything, as there was nothing to find.

Like it or not, those missile and biological/chemical weapons were indeed blown up, by repeated air raids in 1998-2000 (blamed by the right on the then-ongoing Monica Lewinski scandal). The sad part: I already mentioned this, yet it got completely … ignored!

The only “good” the US can do in Iraq is leaving; anything else is just further establishing an occupation. Meanwhile, the bombings continue, the death continues, +4 million remain refugees. All could be solved in 16 months.

Now, I clearly said “how hard it is to make the material,” yet that somehow got turned into “invent.” Nope, I meant make, and still do. As much as technology has advanced, it still requires an immense amount of energy to properly turn raw yellowcake into weapons grade uranium/plutonium. This is why only very powerful nations like the US, USSR/Russia, UK, France, and China can mass produce these. Pakistan and India have a few dozen at incredible expense, and North Korea was effectively blacked out in a failed attempt to make a few bombs (failed, as their infamous dud showed). The only “easy” way is with help from nuclear reactors, which are impossible to hide from modern surveillance devices. Point being, nuclear material: ridiculously hard to make.

No, about forty nations out of over 160 is nowhere near a majority; never mind that even if there was a majority, it did not make the mob mentality any less wrong.

So in the end, no amount of “Durr, he wuz a bad man!” will justify an invasion that has left:
+1 million dead
+4 million refugees
+27 million one way or another robbed of their freedom
A nation wrecked

This not including the +4,000 of America’s finest left dead, the +20,000 maimed one way or the other, and the near $1 billion daily bled from our treasury.

If there is any justice, the ones responsible must be made to pay. Maybe Donald Rumsfeld’s corpse hung from the top of the Washington Monument (a la Mussolini) might be a good enough warning to others that might even consider taking us down this dark path again.

• Posted: 2008-09-01T04:51:42Z

Wow…where to start?

Again, you are speaking with FORESIGHT. In 2003 we didn’t know any of what we know today so I’m sorry but:

Your point is moot
Your point is moot
Your point is moot

Way to keep things civil by trying to insult my intelligence by the way. I’ve yet to do that to you. I guess liberals just can’t argue without trying to demonize and insult their opponent huh? Oh well I tried to have a debate with you but you got childish on me so forget it then I suppose. I will answer back to your post though.

We weren’t bombing the entire country of Iraq…only the no fly zones so NO all of their weapons weren’t destroyed. Don’t you remember when the invasion happened that they were firing missiles right back at us or am I crazy? I didn’t ignore anything you said about that so do me a favor and go back and read what I wrote before you lie about what I said or didn’t say.

You brought up numbers and statistics used to CREATE the bomb so I simply pointed out exactly the comparison you were trying to make. No one said it was easy to build a nuke but at least don’t try to tell me it takes 100,000 people to make one NOW especially if they know how to make one. I didn’t misunderstand anything you said.

+1 million dead
+4 million refugees
+27 million one way or another robbed of their freedom
A nation wrecked

Wow nice numbers…where’d you get them? I especially like the +27 million robbed of their freedom nonsense since they DIDN’T HAVE FREEDOM UNDER SADDAM! Keep making up numbers though it just makes you lose the debate.

If you can reply back to me without an insult then I will like to keep debating with you. If you cannot then I will simply ignore you from now on.

• Posted: 2008-09-01T16:01:25Z

Apparently ignorance is not bliss, especially when someone points out what has been ignored!

Insults? If it’s the ignorance call, to paraphrase Ed Schultz, “it ain’t an insult if it’s true!” The definition of ignorance is to ignore, and to ignore the events from 1998 to 2003 is blatant ignorance.

The point stands.
The point stands.
The point stands.

Now, back to what was, and keeps getting, ignored.

Foresight? Hans Blix and Scott Ritter testified before the UN to state there was not enough evidence to support the WMD allegations before the invasion. They were promptly ignored, preparations apparently set. Field test new weapons for the US military, gain control of Iraqi oil, more power to the executive branch, a bit of everything, we may never know the real reasons we went into Iraq, but they didn’t include WMDs, and is certainly was not to “spread freedom.”

One reason the 1998-2000 bombings got so much attention was that they were beyond the no-fly zones. UN inspections afterward, and before the 2003 invasion, confirmed that the targeted WMDs were destroyed; of course, they were told to keep looking anyway.

I don’t remember any missiles fired at us in 2003 (you might be thinking of the Scuds fired in 1991), so say what you will about your sanity status.

Sure, with modern advances and automation I doubt it’d take 100,000 people to refine the uranium for a bomb, but it still requires energy. The centrifuges, magnets, and various other equipment require the kind of electricity that would run several major cities. Let’s repeat, making the material for a nuke *is* not easy, and not the kind of thing that can be easily hidden.

Ah yes, the numbers:

+4 million refugees

Right, that should be 5.1 million; figure courtesy of the Brookings Institution, in their first study on the impact of “The Surge”.

http://www.brookings.edu/saban/~/media/Files/Centers/Saban/Iraq%20Index/index.pdf

+1 million dead

There have been a series of studies that estimated about 200,000 Iraqi deaths every year since March 2003. The most notable came in 2006, courtesy of the Lancet journal (British version of the NEJM). A thorough investigation within Iraq itself got them a 680,000 dead figure, confirming the 200,000 a year stat. Since it’s been five years, it’s no surprise following studies count a million. Expect 1.2 million by next year.

+27 million robbed of their freedom.

I’m sure there’s a reality where military vehicles running over your family, soldiers breaking into your home, getting forced off said home, and overall mayhem are “freedom, but not this one. Whatever things were like under Saddam, there was no foreign occupation. As already mentioned, the Kurds were already free (since 1995, now they get bombed by Turkey; the Shiites were the closest to actually welcome the US invasion, now they’re getting weary of being told what to do by Westerners; the Sunnis actually welcomed Saddam as a fellow Sunni, and the one who made sure they got the lion’s share of oil revenue, they had the most freedom, and are the most PO’d at US occupation (see Fallujah). Yes, by death, refugee status, or occupation, robbed of freedom sounds right.

While my patience is reaching its limits, I won’t let this ignorance go unchallenged, so if the fight must go on, so be it.

• Posted: 2008-09-04T02:39:10Z

“While my patience is reaching its limits, I won’t let this ignorance go unchallenged, so if the fight must go on, so be it.”

That is because you are arguing with passion…not logic or facts. And please I BEG OF YOU learn what the word ignorant means before you use it. The fact that you are ignorant of what ignorant means is beyond ironic…it’s sad. (No need to give me the definition either…I too know how to use google.) Just because you believe that your insults directed at me are true doesn’t make them so. Time to grow up.

You mention that Hans Blix testified that there was no WMDs before we invaded Iraq. That’s funny that you would say that since UN inspectors were kicked out in 1998. How would they know? In fact I’ll let you read Blix’s testimony since you obviously didn’t read it and are just saying typical liberal hearsay.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/01/27/sprj.irq.transcript.blix/index.html

The quotable points destroying your argument are too many to mention. So I won’t bother too, just like I assume you won’t bother to read it. I’ll sum it up for you THEY WEREN’T SURE WHETHER IRAQ HAD WMDS OR NOT…which was my intial point entirely.

“I don’t remember any missiles fired at us in 2003 (you might be thinking of the Scuds fired in 1991), so say what you will about your sanity status.”

Aside from another dig at me personally… (and the fact that they were firing missiles at us in 2003 as well for that matter)I was talking about from the very beginning about Scud missles when I said:

“a biological-filled scud missle launched at the right place would kill thousands if not hundreds of thousands…mass destruction enough for me”

If you are not going to bother to read my posts please refrain from commenting on them because they don’t fit with your agenda.

Since you just agreed with me on the nuke issue I’ll let you drop it from now on. (If there were no inspectors from 1998 to 2003 then they wouldn’t have to hide that what they were building…no one was there to check.)

About your numbers. Who’s causing those death and refugees? Is it America or the insurgents from Syria and Iran? Before you say that there are only insurgents in Iraq because we toppled the Iraqi government please read the beginning of this post stating why we thought we had to in the first place. Also, I openly laugh at your suggestion that Iraq was more free under Saddam as well and no amount of “evidence” is going to persuade me (or any rational person as well)

I also want to ask if you are aware that we gave over control of Anbar providence (the most dangerous area in Iraq) to the Iraq government since we COMPLETELY PACIFIED IT. Gen. Patraeus has also annouced that we should be out of Iraq by NEXT SUMMER! Of course the media won’t point it out but I will:

We are winning the Iraq war and the Iraqi people will soon be under a government that is a free democratic instituion.

Try to calm down ok?

• Posted: 2008-09-04T15:36:30Z

Wow, this is getting sad.

First there’s this nice bit of what psychiatrists would call projection: “That is because you are arguing with passion…not logic or facts.” CB’s arguments have proven short on both logic and facts, much less reality, yet he’s the one accusing others of his fallacies. Speaking of reality …:

Reality Check 1: From the provided link, “Mr. President, we now have an inspection apparatus that permits us to send multiple inspections teams every day all over Iraq by road or by air. Let me end by simply noting that that capability, which has been built up in a short time and which is now operating, is at the disposal of the Security Council.” This is a man clearly certain inspections work, and a man whose teams found nothing in previous inspections. As the saying would go, no WMDs.

Reality Check 2: The Iraqi military could barely muster a few tanks in 2003, it is ridiculous to make assumptions about Scuds without proof under these circumstances. Confusing 2003 with 1998 is bad enough, but confusing it with 1991 is downright pathetic.

Reality Check 3: Yes, it is indeed incredibly hard to refine nuclear fuel; so, to say that Iraq could have had a working nuclear program in 1998-2003, under even the lightest international observaion, is just dumb.

Reality Check 4: By the US military’s own numbers (numerous interviews), about 10, more likely as little as four percent of the insurgents are foreigners. Most are local fighters fighting for local goals. Of the foreign fighters, Iranian and Syrian presence is negligible; aside that, about 50% are estimated to come from Saudi Arabia.

Reality Check 5: Since said insurgent groups laid dormant under Saddam Hussein, it is an obvious conclusion that the fuel for their activity was the invasion of 2003.

Reality Check 6: Discounting the freedom Kurds had enjoyed since 1995, until 2003; discounting the freedom on the level of the Kurds that Shiites were enjoying; discounting that Sunnis actually enjoyed Saddam’s rule; sovereignty is the ultimate definition of freedom for a nation, and that sovereignty was violated on 2003, there is no arguing around that.

Reality Check 7: US forces abandoned Ambar in 2006. Sunnis pacified the region on their own; that US commanders went in and took credit for their success is a great lesson, as taught by Josef Stalin.

Reality Check 8: The “free democratic government” of current Iraq is run by the majority Shiites. The only way this is a good idea is if one is into ethnic cleansing, or just ignorant of ethnic differences in Iraq, a nation formed of other nations (officially parts of the Ottoman Empire) after World War I.

The delusional are free to believe we are winning in Iraq, as they are free to believe in unicorns, as long as they agree it is time to leave, even if late.

• Posted: 2008-09-05T04:19:35Z

Yet another insult, can’t you debate without name-calling? I have made a call for more civility to the other posters on this site and I extend that invitation to you (again) If you can’t debate me without insulting me than I will no longer respond to you as I would rather speak with mature people. Now to answer back to your “reality checks”

1.) You could only list one instance to support your argument about the inspections? (and a paltry one at that) You forgot to mention how the Iraqi government was intimidating the inspectors and how they were in fear of their saftely. My entire point was that we were not sure what Iraq had since they were not allowing inspections (1998-2003) and were doing nothing to alleviate us of our worries. This sentiment is echoed by Blix numerous amounts of times in his testimony. I can list SEVERAL quotes to prove my point and will list them if you ask.

2.) Barely muster a few tanks!? They had 10 armored divisions. Hardly a “few” by any standards. They also had over 500,000 estimated armed forces which is by no means weak. The only reason America was able to defeat them so quickly is because America just happens to be the superior military in the world and was aided by the second most so (Britain). There is hardly a military that could withstand that in the entire planet.

3.) There was NO inspections from 1998-2003 first off. Secondly, refer to point 1 where Blix himself was not sure what they were making and what still remained from before 1998.

4.) It is not possible to know the percentages of who is in the insurgency and from where but let’s say that the majority of the insurgency is Iraqi born. Who is training and arming them? The answer is Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia. So while they might not be the majority on the front lines they are DEFINITELY just as much a part of the insurgency as the Iraqis using their weapons and training. The majority of the Iraqi born insurgency was also the remains of Saddam’s military. Don’t you find it odd that ever since Saddam has died the insurgency is smaller and there is now a “Sunni Awakening”? These Sunni who were once Saddam’s military are now our allies and are helping rebuild their country instead of destroying it.

5.) Refer to point 4. The “dormant” Iraqi insurgency were the remains of the regime that was the ones doing the oppressing. They weren’t “dormant” because they were the ones America had to fight.

6.) You keep saying that the Kurds were “free.” If by free you mean silent because they had to witness hundreds of thousands of their people murdered only a decade before then sure…they were free. Their “freedom” might also have to do with why they were heavily involved in the Invasion alongside America and her allies.

7.) The Americans never abadoned Anbar. They focused on securing Baghdad (which they did). They needed more money and troops to pacify Anbar (the most dangerous part of Iraq) and got what they needed in the form of the Surge. After the Surge they secured Anbar and have given it back to the Iraqis just this month. There is no arguing this point, the surge helped secure Anbar and with it turned the tide of the war toward victory. Barack Obama even admitted the surge worked last night on the O’Reilly Factor.

8.) I may be wrong about this but isn’t a democracy a form of government run by the MAJORITY of the people? If the majority of the population of Iraq is Shia then that is how the democracy is going to work. The Shia-led government also is composed of Sunni and Kurd members as well. There have been no instance of “ethnic cleansing” and no support for the argument that there will be.

I leave it with you to treat me with respect as I have treated you in your next response. Hopefully we can debate with respect and maturity. Just because we disagree does not mean that we are enemies and name calling is never going to open each others minds to a different view.

• Posted: 2008-09-05T22:10:01Z

I have been a visitor to this site for several days now and find it very interesting; the ongoing debate that has come about. ConservativeBob and Reflex-76 have been trading barbs and it has been quite enlightening.

I must point out, however, that while Reflex-76 has responded to everyone of ConservativeBob’s post, he (if he’s a he) is not ANSWERING any of the questions proposed by ConservativeBob.

A few words for the androgynous Reflex-76. If you are going to insist on labeling your responses “Reality Check” and you do so in a very obnoxiously repetitive way, find the reality in those responses. When ConservativeBob thoroughly rips your “Checks” to shreds by proving them wrong, there is no need to glue it back together with more inconsistent facts, repeating them and shuffling them off as a polished turd. This no longer becomes part of your argument as it further solidifies your ignorance and petty attacks.

Repetition also does not bring truth to an invalid point. The last time repeating anything outlandish worked, Dorothy found herself back in bed, safe and sound. My suggestion to you; please be informed and allow yourself to research facts, if not, don’t bother playing with the big boys.

• Posted: 2008-09-06T01:23:01Z

Looks like a lie does indeed travel around the world before the truth get its pants on, time to get that truth-stick out again …:

“Yet another insult, can’t you debate without name-calling? I have made a call for more civility to the other posters on this site and I extend that invitation to you (again) If you can’t debate me without insulting me than I will no longer respond to you as I would rather speak with mature people.”

Yet I still await to hear just what these “insults” are, though I have a good idea. Either way, as the saying goes, “it’s not an insult if it’s true.”

“Now to answer back to your “reality checks””

Reality apparently still hard to deal with for those who choose to be willfully ignorant.

“1.) You could only list one instance to support your argument about the inspections? (and a paltry one at that) ”

Never mind how critical that “instance” was, I have a weird feeling ten instances would not have been enough, all likely “paltry.”

Oh well, here we go:

• “The Implementation Resolution 687, nevertheless, brought about considerable disarmament results. It has been recognized that more weapons of mass destruction were destroyed under this resolution than were destroyed during the Gulf War. Large quantities of chemical weapons were destroyed under UNSCOM supervision before 1994. ”




• “While Iraq claims, with little evidence, that it destroyed all biological weapons unilaterally in 1991, it is certain that UNSCOM destroyed large biological weapons production facilities in 1996. The large nuclear infrastructure was destroyed and the fissionable material was removed from Iraq by the IAEA. ”

“You forgot to mention how the Iraqi government was intimidating the inspectors and how they were in fear of their saftely. ”

None of it getting in the way of their jobs; and gee, an authoritarian government being intimidating, next thing you know we’ll get a report about the Pope being Catholic, or that thing bears do in the woods.

“My entire point was that we were not sure what Iraq had since they were not allowing inspections (1998-2003) and were doing nothing to alleviate us of our worries.”

Here, from the actual article: “Therefore, for nearly four years, there were no inspectors. They were resumed only at the end of November last year.”

Meaning inspections resumed in 2002 (specifically November), not 2003; willful ignorance, or outright lying, it’s rather revealing.

“This sentiment is echoed by Blix numerous amounts of times in his testimony. I can list SEVERAL quotes to prove my point and will list them if you ask.”

Since I saw no such quotes in the article, I guess an old saying merits here … put up, or shut up!

“2.) Barely muster a few tanks!? They had 10 armored divisions. Hardly a “few” by any standards.”

10 divisions of outdated, barely serviceable vehicles; oh yeah, real threat right there. 9_9

“They also had over 500,000 estimated armed forces which is by no means weak.”

Under most definitions, when said 500,000 aren’t actually fighters, starving, and poorly equipped, to the point they can’t put down a rebellion in the north since 1995, that is most certainly weak.

“The only reason America was able to defeat them so quickly is because America just happens to be the superior military in the world and was aided by the second most so (Britain). There is hardly a military that could withstand that in the entire planet.”

Excuses, excuses; still no justification for such an abominable misuse of said military.

“3.) There was NO inspections from 1998-2003 first off. Secondly, refer to point 1 where Blix himself was not sure what they were making and what still remained from before 1998.”

As I’ve already proven, untrue! (inspections restarted November 2002) Who knows, had Blix been allowed to do his job for another year, it might have been reason to call the invasion off; of course, that may well be why he was cut off in March 2003.

“4.) It is not possible to know the percentages of who is in the insurgency and from where but let’s say that the majority of the insurgency is Iraqi born. Who is training and arming them?”

Considering they are Iraqis, it makes perfect sense to say they are getting their training and arming from fellow Iraqis.

“The answer is Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia. So while they might not be the majority on the front lines they are DEFINITELY just as much a part of the insurgency as the Iraqis using their weapons and training.”

Of course, “perfect sense” seems to be missing here.

“The majority of the Iraqi born insurgency was also the remains of Saddam’s military. ”

Maybe leaders, but the minutemen who make up the front lines are made up of young men avenging dead relatives, or just out to teach them invaders who they’re dealing with. People tend to have a problem with foreign soldiers busting into people’s homes in the middle of the night, running people down in city streets, or just plain killing friends and relatives.

“Don’t you find it odd that ever since Saddam has died the insurgency is smaller and there is now a “Sunni Awakening”? These Sunni who were once Saddam’s military are now our allies and are helping rebuild their country instead of destroying it.”

“Allies,” of course, meaning people who take money from us, and free weaponry they “swear they won’t eventually use on us.” They want to rebuild a Sunni nation, by partition, or by retaking it from the Shiites, as they’d been doing since the fall of the Ottoman Empire.

“5.) Refer to point 4. The “dormant” Iraqi insurgency were the remains of the regime that was the ones doing the oppressing. They weren’t “dormant” because they were the ones America had to fight.”

Actually, they were dormant because Saddam kept them in check. With him out of the way, they were free to go wild.

“6.) You keep saying that the Kurds were “free.” If by free you mean silent because they had to witness hundreds of thousands of their people murdered only a decade before then sure…they were free.”

No, they were free because an ever more impotent Saddam could no longer put down their rebellions. By 1995, the Kurds had their own nation in the north; the only reason they didn’t fully declare the creation of Kurdistan was because of potential reaction from Turkey. Not surprisingly, as Kurds have become more brazen in recent years (specifically, since 2003), the Turk military has been launching raids into Kurdistan, getting surprisingly little attention from the Western media.

“Their “freedom” might also have to do with why they were heavily involved in the Invasion alongside America and her allies.”

As said, the Kurds became brazen when they realized they could take a lot more than the Kurdistan they already had.

“7.) The Americans never abadoned Anbar.”

Maybe not abadoned it, but certainly abandoned it. Most of those soldiers went to Baghdad. Where …

“They focused on securing Baghdad (which they did). ”

… they finished the ethnic cleansing of Sunnis started by the Shiites. I guess that’s one way to “secure” a city.

“They needed more money and troops to pacify Anbar (the most dangerous part of Iraq) and got what they needed in the form of the Surge.”

Troops being the local insurgents, and money … well, obviously.

“After the Surge they secured Anbar and have given it back to the Iraqis just this month. There is no arguing this point, the surge helped secure Anbar and with it turned the tide of the war toward victory. Barack Obama even admitted the surge worked last night on the O’Reilly Factor.”

Actually, that quite deftly spun by Billo. Barack clarified his answer on his interview on Countdown with Keith Olbermann. While there is some arguable success for “The Surge,” it is doubtful it worked to its full intent, and it still ignores the overall mistake of the invasion.

“8.) I may be wrong about this but isn’t a democracy a form of government run by the MAJORITY of the people? ”

No, that’s tyranny of the majority; under a true democracy, it’s “majority rules, minority rights.” “True Democracy” being a representative republic, of course, as those tend to be confused a lot.

“If the majority of the population of Iraq is Shia then that is how the democracy is going to work. The Shia-led government also is composed of Sunni and Kurd members as well.”

Of course, figuratively being told to sit in the corner and told to shut up is hard to count as “representation.” With the secular Sunnis and Kurds out of the way, Iraq is well on the way to becoming a Sharia Law nation.

“There have been no instance of “ethnic cleansing” and no support for the argument that there will be.”

Other than the suddenly Sunni-less Baghdad, those 5.1 million refugees, and many of those over one million dead, sure no ethnic cleansing.

“I leave it with you to treat me with respect as I have treated you in your next response. Hopefully we can debate with respect and maturity. Just because we disagree does not mean that we are enemies and name calling is never going to open each others minds to a different view.”

Respect has to be earned. Frankly, I seen no reason to respect someone who can’t see the problem of violating a nation’s sovereignty, and chooses to ignore so many facts. Maybe acknowledging that things might have gone better for Iraq had a there been no invasion in 2003, perhaps limited air strikes as had been done for the previous 12 years, and had been done in Yugoslavia. An eventual split into Kurds in the north (capital Mosul), Sunnis in the west (capital Fallujah, the last thing Saddam would lead), Shiites in the east (capital Basra), and perhaps a mix in and around Baghdad would further have followed the Yugoslavia model.

Leading back to the original point, all this had distracted us from our real target in Afghanistan/Pakistan. The Taliban is already making a comeback against our neglected forces there. There necessary wars, and unnecessary wars, it should become clearer and clearer which is which.

• Posted: 2008-09-10T02:43:21Z

Calling me ignorant is an insult. You can’t seem to stop using that word (which you don’t even know the definition of you said it means “to ignore”) I’m not calling you anything so there is no reason for you to do it. Mutual respect is not “earned” it’s a basic tenent of a civilized society. Act like a grown-up and quit the name calling.

“Meaning inspections resumed in 2002 (specifically November), not 2003; willful ignorance, or outright lying, it’s rather revealing”

I was off by two months! Calm down. Two months is not long enough to do anything we are talking about so you can let that go whenever you like.

I’m no longer going off on your tangents because you just keep repeating yourself even after I disprove them. I’ll touch on them quickly right now but after that I’m done. You have consistently offered opinions about these issues and not facts.

The Kurds were not a free seperate nation (they still aren’t) and everyone but you recognizes that the Surge worked. In fact the only people that say it didn’t are quickly corrected by pretty much any informed person they talk too. You offer absolutely no evidence that the Iraqi army was “starving” and that doesn’t even make sense since the insurgents are not even in this condition years after the invasion. Finally, to ignore the reports that the insurgency is funded and trained by Iran and the other countries is completely blind criticism and no amount of talking to you is going to fix that so I’m not going to bother anymore.

I’m sticking strictly to proving my point from now on. Since you are the one who challenged me at the beginning of this you have to prove my inital point wrong; something you have not yet done. That point being the fact that we weren’t entirely sure what Iraq had or didn’t have and they weren’t allowing us to search properly to dismiss our worries.

You must of ignored Blix when he said:

“I turn, Mr. President, now to the missile sector. There remain significant questions as to whether Iraq retained Scud-type missiles after the Gulf War. Iraq declared the consumption of a number of Scud missiles as targets in the development of an anti-ballistic missile defense system during the 1980s, yet no technical information has been produced about that program or data on the consumption of the missiles.
There has been a range of developments in the missile field during the past four years, presented by Iraq in the declaration as non-proscribed activities. We are trying to gather a clear understanding of them through inspections and on-site discussions.”

Did you see the part where he said “we are trying to gather a clear understanding..” A CLEAR UNDERSTANDING. Perhaps you can get a clear understanding that they didn’t have one!

“As I reported to the council on the 19th of December last year, Iraq did not declare a significant quantity, some 650 kilos, of bacterial growth media, which was acknowledged as reported in Iraq’s submission to the Amorim panel in February 1999. As a part of its 7 December 2002 declaration Iraq resubmitted the Amorim panel document but the table showing this particular import of media was not included. The absence of this table would appear to be deliberate, as the pages of the resubmitted document were renumbered.”

They deliberately withheld information on their weapons. You can’t get a clear understanding of what’s going on over there if they are not letting you. This is so simple I cannot understand how you can’t see it.

“Iraq has also declared the recent import of chemicals used in propellants, test instrumentation and guidance and control system. These items may well be for proscribed purposes; that is yet to be determined.”

Here’s some more quotes for you to read:

“I have pointed to some during my presentation of the issues, let me be a little more systematic. Our Iraqi counterparts are fond of saying that there are no proscribed items and if no evidence is presented to the contrary, they should have the benefit of the doubt; be presumed innocent.”

“So far, we have reported on the recent find of a small number of empty 122 mm warheads for chemical weapons. Iraq declared that it appointed a commission of inquiry to look for more. Fine. Why not extend the search to other items? Declare what may be found and destroy it under our supervision.”

There is much more but I’m tired of pasting the same things over and over again. WE DIDN’T KNOW what they had. Blix was asking for more time by the end of the report and we decided that waiting to know the truth could be more disasterous than finding out by Iraq showing us what they have by dropping it on us. We might not of found WMD’s but we surely did find mass killing fields with graves stuffed with hundreds of thousands of bodies. It does not bother me that we went to Iraq since we stopped this kind of mass murder from a dictator like Saddam Hussein and it shouldn’t bother you either. Hussein was evil and the world universally recognizes that. Evil must be confronted not ignored or appeased and if you think that it should be ignored or appeased I’m very glad you are not in a position of power…or we’d be dead sooner or later. The world doesn’t run on good intentions and fluffy talk that goes nowhere it runs on action. If you think America is so horrible then think what the world would be like if Russia or China was calling the shots and you’d reconsider.

To say Bush lied about Iraq in order to invade it is just patently false. Your hatred of the man is blinding you from the facts. Your knowledge of what has happened NOW doesn’t make our suspicions back then wrong. We simply didn’t know, we were wrong about them yes, but we didn’t know. It’s better to be safe than sorry.

• Posted: 2008-09-11T02:33:09Z