In the days leading up to the war in Iraq, during the war, and for a while after it, I was a staunch supporter of our actions.

But, I was wrong.

I was told that Iraq was a threat to the United States, they had weapons that could kill us, and were making plans to do so. I was told that Iraq and Saddam were part of the attacks on 9/11.

Needless to say I really supported the war.

But what I was told was wrong.

Iraq was no threat to us at all. They had no weapons that could kill us. And they were not associated with 9/11.

In the end, we have 2500 Americans that were around my age killed in Iraq. That number is still growing. Some of them were married, even had children. Some of them were starting great lives for the future. Towns were devastated when they lost a soldier. But at the time, it was comforting to know it was for a great cause. But it was not.

Yes, Saddam was bad. I know all the shit he did in Iraq and that was another reason why I supported the war. But who are we to play world police and crack down on all the bad governments in the world? We have a ways to go past Saddam. Iraqis needed to fight for their own freedom, like we did against the Britains.

Besides the death toll, the war costed us a boat-load when the National Debt is nearing on $9 trillion. But again, it was comforting to know it was going towards a good cause, protecting Americans. But it wasn't.

Oh yeah, and Osama Bin Laden and many of his friends are still running around in the mountains.

We tried to go through the United Nations. They didn't support it. But we spurned them anyways and went to war. Again, it was comfortable knowing it was for a good cause. But it wasn't.

And now looking at the after-effects of this war, they are frightening. The Middle-East hates America even more now. The Palastinians elected the leader of Hamas as their president. And Iraq is very unstable right now.

I don't know if we can ever leave there. Civil War is very possible the second we do. This country wasn't ready for freedom yet. They don't know how to handle it.

So, all-in-all, I'm very dissapointed in myself for being totally wrong on all of this, and I'm dissapointed that Bush & Friends rushed America into this terrible circumstance.

That post pretty much applies to me as well.

The sad thing is that they are talking about going into Iran. What a disaster that would be.

The sad thing is that they are talking about going into Iran. What a disaster that would be.

We have no money. We have no soldiers. The War would be even more unpopular than Vietnam. And it could be devastating.

We did the most absurd thing, if anyone is the threat, it's Iran, not Iraq. And Iran is plugging away at their nuclear program.

While we thought we did a great thing in getting rid of Saddam, one thing he always did was keep Iran in line. Iran knew as soon as they fucked up Saddam would run across their border and start another war as deadly as the 80's Iran-Iraq war.

So by storming Iraq, we just gave Iran the green light to just walk in and start a conquest of the middle east.

On a much smaller scale, we basically just took Hitler out of power and gave Stalin the keys to the entire region.

So by storming Iraq, we just gave Iran the green light to just walk in and start a conquest of the middle east.
Once we leave Iraq. Which is why I question, "Can we ever leave there?"

So by storming Iraq, we just gave Iran the green light to just walk in and start a conquest of the middle east.
Once we leave Iraq. Which is why I question, "Can we ever leave there?"

No, because Arabs cant handle freedom. They need people like Saddam. They need people like Saddam to keep they're asses in check. Saddam made examples out of thousands of innocent people, but the rest kept right in line.

Bush did no favors by getting rid of him. The second the US backs out of Iraq, another terror group will take over and all your time money and effort will be wasted. Arabs are corrupt as hell. Its a war that cant be won no matter how long you fight. Hell, even now most of the police force that we’re training is already corrupt.

I said the same exact thing Anthony. Arabs don't want freedom and they can't handle it. You guys saw how the Muslims went crazy over a fucking cartoon burning down embassies.

I'm not worried about Iran attacking us at all. These countries aren't that stupid. They know if they send a nuke over here we will turn that whole fucking country into a parking lot over night.

These countries didn't attack us on 9/11. It was a group of mountain idiots in Afganistan, the ultimate 3rd world country. They have been the only terrorist group to carry out attacks against the United States, they've got nothing to lose really. Groups like Hamas will leave us alone because they fear us. We should put total focus on Al-Quaida. They got 9/11, the embassies, and the USS Cole.

I bet you still vote for Jeb or some other neocon scum bag in 08.

I bet you still vote for Jeb or some other neocon scum bag in 08.
Of course. And it's not going to be Jeb. The Bush family had their run. But I will vote for the Republican candidate. Unless McCain slips in there, I might have to go the other way. Please no Hillary.

What problem do you have with McCain? Did the Karl Rove lies about him having an illegitimate black baby work on you too?

What problem do you have with McCain? Did the Karl Rove lies about him having an illegitimate black baby work on you too?
Haha, no. I think he is fake. It's my opinion that he constantly jumps across party barriers to stir things up and bring himself attention. I want a true Republican in there.

By the way, I didn't even know about the Karl Rove thing. There is another one of Bush's flaws.

What problem do you have with McCain? Did the Karl Rove lies about him having an illegitimate black baby work on you too?who cares. he's recycled crap with the other brainwashed neo cons.

ya know you can rationalize anything. michigan's economy is dying, the country's economy isnt that great, the war will have us bs for atleast 10 years, our white house practices snitching on the CIA, and the commander in chief is a proven idiot several times over. Yet as faithful Conservative you must and will rationalize a good job out of it and a need to keep this party in.

You live in Iran already because you vote for who your party tells you. And you defend them and the party responsible for them to your grave. I hope to never be that unfree ever. You're primed to pick a six headed beast planning on the apocalypse openly, if your party endorses it.

What problem do you have with McCain? Did the Karl Rove lies about him having an illegitimate black baby work on you too?
Haha, no. I think he is fake. It's my opinion that he constantly jumps across party barriers to stir things up and bring himself attention. I want a true Republican in there.

By the way, I didn't even know about the Karl Rove thing. There is another one of Bush's flaws.
basically you hate him for thinking freely ....LMAO@the rules of the rebublican faith

Bush isn't a true conservative yet you supported him.

basically you hate him for thinking freely ....LMAO@the rules of the rebublican faith

I don't believe McCain is "thinking freely." I think he sleeps with both sides to gain support.

LMAO@your perception of Republicans. I am going to vote for the guy that I agree with on the issues. Would you vote for a Democrat that constantly agreed with Republicans and went against what you believe? There is no "Republican faith" that's just stupid.

Clearly, if there was a "Republican faith," I would be arguing that this war was justified. I can't believe you would accuse me of that junk after I start this thread admitting I was wrong.

Bush isn't a true conservative yet you supported him.
Because the other guy was John Kerry.

Bush isn't a true conservative yet you supported him.
Because the other guy was John Kerry.
lame cop out excuse. He wasnt a true conserative in his first election. Yet republicans didn't read up on his policies. they just said "A Bush is a Bush"

lame cop out excuse. He wasnt a true conserative in his first election. Yet republicans didn't read up on his policies. they just said "A Bush is a Bush"
His opponent was the one and only John McCain. The next guy was Alan Keyes.

But I did support Bush in his first election, I'll admit to that. We knew he was more moderate, but we liked that he was a change of pace and wasn't one of those stuck up politicians, he's a Texan.

And most Republicans will still support their man, nobody likes to admit they were wrong. But I am not pleased.

lame cop out excuse. He wasnt a true conserative in his first election. Yet republicans didn't read up on his policies. they just said "A Bush is a Bush"
His opponent was the one and only John McCain. The next guy was Alan Keyes.

But I did support Bush in his first election, I'll admit to that. We knew he was more moderate, but we liked that he was a change of pace and wasn't one of those stuck up politicians, he's a Texan.

And most Republicans will still support their man, nobody likes to admit they were wrong. But I am not pleased.
he flipped flop just as much as mccain. like i said, didnt read up on the candidate.

Bush isn't stuck up? LMFAO! Has there ever been a more arrogant president? And Bush isn't a real Texan. He likes to play cowboy but that's about it. He's just a corporate whore whose failed at every job he's ever had. He's a piece of shit. You're the dumbass that bought that that fucktard was some sort of Washington outsider even though he's had keys to the white house for 20 years.

Gutz, I'm going to ask you a favor. Look at the opposition with a more open mind. Something has convinced you that Republicans all think and act alike in masses. Nope, we are Americans just like any Democrat. We vote for who represents our feelings. Read my posts about politics as what SKelly thinks, not what all Republicans think. For every stuck up Republican there is a stuck up Democrat. I don't really like arguing for Republicans as a whole, I like to argue for myself. I feel differently than the Republican party with a few issues, I can't speak for all of them.

Bush isn't stuck up? LMFAO! Has there ever been a more arrogant president? And Bush isn't a real Texan. He likes to play cowboy but that's about it. He's just a corporate whore whose failed at every job he's ever had. He's a piece of shit. You're the dumbass that bought that that fucktard was some sort of Washington outsider even though he's had keys to the white house for 20 years.
I know I know I know. I've already said I'm not pleased with his administration. I'm not going on blind faith here.

Put it this way, I would support Bush over Gore anyday, I would support Bush over Kerry anyday.

Gutz, I'm going to ask you a favor. Look at the opposition with a more open mind. Something has convinced you that Republicans all think and act alike in masses.

WTF? opposition? see thats your problem. you say opposition. i say dumbass voting. i dont oppose you for voting based on party, i actually pity you as a voter. because you arent freely choosing. you just take from the crop you are given and eat your cheese. hardcore democrats do too. but right now they didnt vote in possibly the dumbest president ever(i thought jimmy carter was an idiot and he's light years smarter than bush thats bad) whose killing people. its looked at as a war. but he's killing people, people are dying for an invisible cause he gave them. now they have to rationalize beyond what he said to get them in Iraq to stay there.

I'm sorry but yours and others need to vote based on party, who looks nicer, who says funnier shit, or looks less boring cost this country lives. Rationalize it anyway you want. call me an opposition, say you didnt know, tell me how free iraq is, do it all. but you're trying to convince yourself not me.

speaking of open mind, how open is yours if you peg me as a democrat because i call you out on not really paying attention to the candidates?

I know I know I know. I've already said I'm not pleased with his administration. I'm not going on blind faith here.

Put it this way, I would support Bush over Gore anyday, I would support Bush over Kerry anyday.

sounds like blind faith to me.

Listen man, I'm trying to ease this discussion here. I don't want to get into an argument on Republican values because I don't really give a shit.


i dont oppose you for voting based on party, i actually pity you as a voter.
I'll respect this point if you can honestly say you've voted for a Republican for a major political position.


because you arent freely choosing. you just take from the crop you are given and eat your cheese.
You get two choices. One Democrat vs. one Republican. The last two Democrats in Gore and Kerry could not get any support from Republicans. If the Democrats elect more of a moderate candidate Bush would have gotten beat up. Remember, he had a low approval rating around election time. But people could never warm up to Kerry.


I'm sorry but yours and others need to vote based on party, who looks nicer, who says funnier shit, or looks less boring cost this country lives. Rationalize it anyway you want. call me an opposition, say you didnt know, tell me how free iraq is, do it all. but you're trying to convince yourself not me.
As I said in an earlier post, you are making this argument to all Republicans. I don't know man, I can't speak for all of them, I just speak for myself. I no longer support what we did in Iraq. If anything I should be given a pat on the back by you for seeing things without right tinted glasses.


speaking of open mind, how open is yours if you peg me as a democrat
I didn't call you a Democrat. I said "opposition." Clearly, you've made Republicans your opposition. I don't know if you are a member of the Democratic party or not. I know you tilt to the left, but that's all I know.


because i call you out on not really paying attention to the candidates?
Again, I'm not going to try and speak for all Republicans, but I was 12 during that first election. I'm sorry I didn't study up enough. I didn't have a vote.

sounds like blind faith to me.
How? Gore and Kerry don't reflect my views at all. Why would I vote for them?

The point I was trying to make, Gutz, is that as soon as I imply that I'm a Republican, you think you know me in and out politically. Well, you don't.

I'll give you an example. I'm very anti-death penalty.

I say I'm Republican because you are generally one or the other and I would say Republican for me.

You want more, I think the minimum wage should be raised.

Other than hating fags what values do you share with Dubya.

I say I'm Republican because you are generally one or the other and I would say Republican for me.
generally you are playing yourself if you think that. I have you as pegged as you speak. YOU made the claim that you vote republican regardless. I've said nothing that isnt true. I just pity your stance. I have an opinion about your stance. not opinion to tell what your stance is.

To me its blind faith to vote based on the reasons you've put out. and it cost lives(once again my opinion). indirectly of course. im not saying you killed someone. anyways its just my opinion. dont be sensitive or feel like im pegging you for being a republican. just for voting based on two party system. and its a lil worse because you voted for a known imbecile (atleast anyone who knew of him in his governor days or read up on him).

either way you're entitled to vote based on party or with party as a factor. 90+ percent of voters do, so its not a big deal i guess.

speaking of open mind, how open is yours if you peg me as a democrat
I didn't call you a Democrat. I said "opposition." Clearly, you've made Republicans your opposition. I don't know if you are a member of the Democratic party or not. I know you tilt to the left, but that's all I know.
.
LOL@this left and right bullshit. the easiest way to peg someone. practice what you preach on that pegging shit. Actually I dont hate all republicans, i understand why some would support general original conservative idealism, though i think its supremely flawed in too many policies for me. But i have no respect for the party and its voters as of late in their supporting the candidates because they are in the party, they just cut off any chance of fairly judging that guy. Theres no slight in me. Its pegging to assume that i just hate republicans.
Actually i pity the blind faith stance that accompanies it and the democratic party.

either way i'll let you be, was just saying is all.

Other than hating fags what values do you share with Dubya.
To be honest all I really care about are the fags. j/k. There is one big issue with me that I won't dare bring up. But in general I tilt to the right.

generally you are playing yourself if you think that. I have you as pegged as you speak. YOU made the claim that you vote republican regardless.
I said "of course" to that claim because the odds are pretty good that I'll vote Republican in the next election. But I never said I'd vote Republican regardless. I do hold some regards. If it was McCain vs. Lieberman, I'll vote Lieberman. Or if the next guy makes a promise to attack Iran, in no way will I vote for him. But neither of those scenarios are going to happen.


To me its blind faith to vote based on the reasons you've put out. and it cost lives(once again my opinion). indirectly of course. im not saying you killed someone. anyways its just my opinion. dont be sensitive or feel like im pegging you for being a republican. just for voting based on two party system. and its a lil worse because you voted for a known imbecile (atleast anyone who knew of him in his governor days or read up on him).
I was too young to vote last election. My opinions didn't matter until I turned 18 a month ago. I still gotta register though, so my opinions still don't really matter. Anyways, I would have voted for Bush last election because I could never vote for Kerry.


either way you're entitled to vote based on party or with party as a factor. 90+ percent of voters do, so its not a big deal i guess.
It's because they agree with the issues of a particular party.

LOL@this left and right bullshit. the easiest way to peg someone. practice what you preach on that pegging shit.
Are you trying to tell me you don't tilt to the left. I'm just going by your words man.


Actually I dont hate all republicans, i understand why some would support general original conservative idealism, though i think its supremely flawed in too many policies for me. But i have no respect for the party and its voters as of late in their supporting the candidates because they are in the party, they just cut off any chance of fairly judging that guy. Theres no slight in me. Its pegging to assume that i just hate republicans.
I never said you, "Hate all Republicans." I just said that you've made them your opposition.



I can't believe we're talking about my "blind faith" when I just started a thread saying that the Republicans were wrong on the biggest issue of the last 5 years.

im not trying to tell you anything. i dont "tilt" either way. i tilt away from low IQ presidents regardless of party.

The really revealing thing about conservatives isn't what their opponents say about them but the message that conservatives themselves successfully use to appeal to their own base. Their ideology can be summed up as "God hates liberals, terrorists and fags. Democrats are all of the above. Vote republican."

The notion that they are selling a constructive agenda of their own is bullshit that only has currency because it's repeated ad nauseum on fox news and talk radio. Republicans have one card: fear. They play it early and often because it works.

I cant believe the riots and crap going on over those cartoons...absolute bullshit. ITs just complete 100% proof that muslim nations cannot live in a free, democratic establishment.

Not that I want to challenge peoples thinking in here or anything but there happens to be a new book out by Saddams Air Force general that says Iraq had WMD and they are in Syria. Whatever the motivations of this former Air Force general are (maybe money?) this has been rumored from the get go. It's plausible and could really of happened.

P.S. Any text bolded in the article was bolded by me and not written by me.

So before you say "you were wrong" I would suggest you let history and the future to prove that out.

http://www.nysun.com/article/26514?page_no=1

By IRA STOLL - Staff Reporter of the Sun
January 26, 2006

The man who served as the no. 2 official in Saddam Hussein's air force says Iraq moved weapons of mass destruction into Syria before the war by loading the weapons into civilian aircraft in which the passenger seats were removed.

The Iraqi general, Georges Sada, makes the charges in a new book, "Saddam's Secrets," released this week. He detailed the transfers in an interview yesterday with The New York Sun.

"There are weapons of mass destruction gone out from Iraq to Syria, and they must be found and returned to safe hands," Mr. Sada said. "I am confident they were taken over."

Mr. Sada's comments come just more than a month after Israel's top general during Operation Iraqi Freedom, Moshe Yaalon, told the Sun that Saddam "transferred the chemical agents from Iraq to Syria."

Democrats have made the absence of stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq a theme in their criticism of the Bush administration's decision to go to war in 2003. And President Bush himself has conceded much of the point; in a televised prime-time address to Americans last month, he said, "It is true that many nations believed that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. But much of the intelligence turned out to be wrong."

Said Mr. Bush, "We did not find those weapons."

The discovery of the weapons in Syria could alter the American political debate on the Iraq war. And even the accusations that they are there could step up international pressure on the government in Damascus. That government, led by Bashar Assad, is already facing a U.N. investigation over its alleged role in the assassination of a former prime minister of Lebanon. The Bush administration has criticized Syria for its support of terrorism and its failure to cooperate with the U.N. investigation.

The State Department recently granted visas for self-proclaimed opponents of Mr. Assad to attend a "Syrian National Council" meeting in Washington scheduled for this weekend, even though the attendees include communists, Baathists, and members of the Islamist Muslim Brotherhood group to the exclusion of other, more mainstream groups.

Mr. Sada, 65, told the Sun that the pilots of the two airliners that transported the weapons of mass destruction to Syria from Iraq approached him in the middle of 2004, after Saddam was captured by American troops.

"I know them very well. They are very good friends of mine. We trust each other. We are friends as pilots," Mr. Sada said of the two pilots. He declined to disclose their names, saying they are concerned for their safety. But he said they are now employed by other airlines outside Iraq.

The pilots told Mr. Sada that two Iraqi Airways Boeings were converted to cargo planes by removing the seats, Mr. Sada said. Then Special Republican Guard brigades loaded materials onto the planes, he said, including "yellow barrels with skull and crossbones on each barrel." The pilots said there was also a ground convoy of trucks.

The flights - 56 in total, Mr. Sada said - attracted little notice because they were thought to be civilian flights providing relief from Iraq to Syria, which had suffered a flood after a dam collapse in June of 2002.

Saddam realized, this time, the Americans are coming," Mr. Sada said. "They handed over the weapons of mass destruction to the Syrians."

Mr. Sada said that the Iraqi official responsible for transferring the weapons was a cousin of Saddam Hussein named Ali Hussein al-Majid, known as "Chemical Ali." The Syrian official responsible for receiving them was a cousin of Bashar Assad who is known variously as General Abu Ali, Abu Himma, or Zulhimawe.

Short of discovering the weapons in Syria, those seeking to validate Mr. Sada's claim independently will face difficulty. His book contains a foreword by a retired U.S. Air Force colonel, David Eberly, who was a prisoner of war in Iraq during the first Gulf War and who vouches for Mr. Sada, who once held him captive, as "an honest and honorable man."

In his visit to the Sun yesterday, Mr. Sada was accompanied by Terry Law, the president of a Tulsa, Oklahoma based Christian humanitarian organization called World Compassion. Mr. Law said he has known Mr. Sada since 2002, lived in his house in Iraq and had Mr. Sada as a guest in his home in America. "Do I believe this man? Yes," Mr. Law said. "It's been solid down the line and everything checked out."

Said Mr. Law, "This is not a publicity hound. This is a man who wants peace putting his family on the line."

Mr. Sada acknowledged that the disclosures about transfers of weapons of mass destruction are "a very delicate issue." He said he was afraid for his family. "I am sure the terrorists will not like it. The Saddamists will not like it," he said.

He thanked the American troops. "They liberated the country and the nation. It is a liberation force. They did a great job," he said. "We have been freed."

He said he had not shared his story until now with any American officials. "I kept everything secret in my heart," he said. But he is scheduled to meet next week in Washington with Senators Sessions and Inhofe, Republicans of, respectively, Alabama and Oklahoma. Both are members of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

The book also says that on the eve of the first Gulf War, Saddam was planning to use his air force to launch a chemical weapons attack on Israel.

When, during an interview with the Sun in April 2004, Vice President Cheney was asked whether he thought that Iraqi weapons of mass destruction had been moved to Syria, Mr. Cheney replied only that he had seen such reports.

An article in the Fall 2005 Middle East Quarterly reports that in an appearance on Israel's Channel 2 on December 23, 2002, Israel's prime minister, Ariel Sharon, stated, "Chemical and biological weapons which Saddam is endeavoring to conceal have been moved from Iraq to Syria." The allegation was denied by the Syrian government at the time as "completely untrue," and it attracted scant American press attention, coming as it did on the eve of the Christmas holiday.

The Syrian ruling party and Saddam Hussein had in common the ideology of Baathism, a mixture of Nazism and Marxism.

Syria is one of only eight countries that has not signed the Chemical Weapons Convention, a treaty that obligates nations not to stockpile or use chemical weapons. Syria's chemical warfare program, apart from any weapons that may have been received from Iraq, has long been the source of concern to America, Israel, and Lebanon. In March 2004, the director of Central Intelligence, George Tenet, testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee, saying, "Damascus has an active CW development and testing program that relies on foreign suppliers for key controlled chemicals suitable for producing CW."

The CIA's Iraq Survey Group acknowledged in its September 30, 2004, "Comprehensive Report," "we cannot express a firm view on the possibility that WMD elements were relocated out of Iraq prior to the war. Reports of such actions exist, but we have not yet been able to investigate this possibility thoroughly."

Mr. Sada is an unusual figure for an Iraqi general as he is a Christian and was not a member of the Baath Party. He now directs the Iraq operations of the Christian humanitarian organization, World Compassion.

So before you say "you were wrong" I would suggest you let history and the future to prove that out.


Entering year three of occupation they've turned up nothing on WMDs. History has spoken, there were no WMD stockpiles, no WMD programs, nothing. The rest is conservative wishful thinking trying to create space to rationalize away a $300 billion (and counting), 2000 american lives (and counting) mistake. Then again, that's nothing a few more tax cuts and recruiters in poor neighborhoods won't solve so no harm done.

So before you say "you were wrong" I would suggest you let history and the future to prove that out.


Entering year three of occupation they've turned up nothing on WMDs. History has spoken, there were no WMD stockpiles, no WMD programs, nothing. The rest is conservative wishful thinking trying to create space to rationalize away a $300 billion (and counting), 2000 american lives (and counting) mistake. Then again, that's nothing a few more tax cuts and recruiters in poor neighborhoods won't solve so no harm done.

No, I am sorry that is not correct. Neither you or I know for sure if they had them, nor do either of us know if they went to Syria. The former General lays out "a possibility" of what could of happened and he thinks it did.

This isn't conservative wishful thinking more like liberals hoping, praying something like this isn't true.

Like I said you really don't know and neither do I but I am willing to let history tell me what went on. You can think anything you want and are entitled too I would just be careful with claiming your way of thinking is the truth.

Even if they did go to Syria, you figure there would be some little trace of evidence left in Iraq. Papers, personal accounts, word of mouth, documents, anything. There has been nothing.

I mean, if they do discover that they did have WMD's and were targeting America, I'll flip-flop again. But I flip-flopped the first time on the assumption that Iraq was in no way a threat to any American.

So before you say "you were wrong" I would suggest you let history and the future to prove that out.


Entering year three of occupation they've turned up nothing on WMDs. History has spoken, there were no WMD stockpiles, no WMD programs, nothing. The rest is conservative wishful thinking trying to create space to rationalize away a $300 billion (and counting), 2000 american lives (and counting) mistake. Then again, that's nothing a few more tax cuts and recruiters in poor neighborhoods won't solve so no harm done.

No, I am sorry that is not correct. Neither you or I know for sure if they had them, nor do either of us know if they went to Syria. The former General lays out "a possibility" of what could of happened and he thinks it did.

This isn't conservative wishful thinking more like liberals hoping, praying something like this isn't true.

Like I said you really don't know and neither do I but I am willing to let history tell me what went on. You can think anything you want and are entitled too I would just be careful with claiming your way of thinking is the truth.

nah, sorry Gecko thats a real deep shot in the dark you have there. You're right, we don't know, but the flag of the anti-war folks deserves to be flown until something physically disproves it. They may claim there were no weapons, just as conservitives may claim it was arabs who flew planes into buildings on 9/11. There are some hair-brained counter ideas out there but at this point you need to face fact.

So before you say "you were wrong" I would suggest you let history and the future to prove that out.


Entering year three of occupation they've turned up nothing on WMDs. History has spoken, there were no WMD stockpiles, no WMD programs, nothing. The rest is conservative wishful thinking trying to create space to rationalize away a $300 billion (and counting), 2000 american lives (and counting) mistake. Then again, that's nothing a few more tax cuts and recruiters in poor neighborhoods won't solve so no harm done.

No, I am sorry that is not correct. Neither you or I know for sure if they had them, nor do either of us know if they went to Syria. The former General lays out "a possibility" of what could of happened and he thinks it did.

This isn't conservative wishful thinking more like liberals hoping, praying something like this isn't true.

Like I said you really don't know and neither do I but I am willing to let history tell me what went on. You can think anything you want and are entitled too I would just be careful with claiming your way of thinking is the truth.

nah, sorry Gecko thats a real deep shot in the dark you have there. You're right, we don't know, but the flag of the anti-war folks deserves to be flown until something physically disproves it. They may claim there were no weapons, just as conservitives may claim it was arabs who flew planes into buildings on 9/11. There are some hair-brained counter ideas out there but at this point you need to face fact.

Your point is much more logical and void of any political rhetoric so I can see what you are saying. On the WMD thing I can yield on that issue until more proof comes out to the contrary but on the overall merits of the war is where I reserve the right to let history show me either way it was a good/bad thing.

I have reached the point of not caring anymore with either side be it green party, republican, nazi, communist.

Gecko:

You're asking yourself all the wrong questions.

Try this one:

What if GWB didn't know and/or care if Iraq had WMD or not?

What if GWB felt that even if Iraq had WMD, it wasn't a real threat to the USA?

What if GWB simply wanted to go to war with Iraq for his own ulterior motives, and used WMD as his excuse to go to war, never once caring if Saddam really had WMD or not?

If that were the case, why would we have to wait for history to prove anyone right or wrong?

If GWB knowingly started an illegal war on purpose, and knowingly used WMD as his excuse to start an illegal war when he was not afraid of actually being harmed by WMD in the first place, why would we have to wait for history to show if they ever had WMD in the first place or not?

You can't get the right answers until you start asking the right questions, and you aren't asking the right questions at all.

Do you see how you're going about this whole issue bass ackwards?

I truly believe that God told the President to wage this war. All he is doing is sending non-believers to the fiery depths of hell where they belong.

I'm not going to play the "What if" game, I'm just observing facts for now.

[quote="Taymelo"]Gecko:

You're asking yourself all the wrong questions.

Try this one:

What if GWB didn't know and/or care if Iraq had WMD or not?

You mean like him believing he had a higher calling to go to war outside of WMD? Yes, I know this is a possibility and I agree with some aspects of his beliefs on this.

What if GWB felt that even if Iraq had WMD, it wasn't a real threat to the USA?

I don't believe this is true and feel that Bush did in fact believe Iraq posed a danger to the U.S and it's interests.


What if GWB simply wanted to go to war with Iraq for his own ulterior motives, and used WMD as his excuse to go to war, never once caring if Saddam really had WMD or not?


"Ulterior Motives" is subjective and can be interpreted differently by different people. I have read theories but no seen no proof of these so called ulterior motives.

If that were the case, why would we have to wait for history to prove anyone right or wrong?

I fault Bush for having a poor plan in place to rebuild Iraq...The other part of the equation I reserve judgement on until all domino's have fallen. At some point in the future I and every American will look back on what happened and decide if it was worth it. Like I have said before, my mind isn't changing. Both sides have valid points. What is done is done I rather focus on winning now and not get into a beliefs argument which no one wins.

If GWB knowingly started an illegal war on purpose, and knowingly used WMD as his excuse to start an illegal war when he was not afraid of actually being harmed by WMD in the first place, why would we have to wait for history to show if they ever had WMD in the first place or not?

If one feels the war was waged illegally then I can see how one arrives at this conclusion. It's open for public debate but hardly been proven. Congress and both parties should then be held culpable by your standards.

You can't get the right answers until you start asking the right questions, and you aren't asking the right questions at all.

When you can phrase your statement without using the "if" qualifier than we can have a serious debate. If "if's and buts" were candy and nuts.... I present a plausible case that WMD's might be in Syria. Is it true? .

Do you see how you're going about this whole issue bass ackwards?

I think I am going about this in a methodical realistic way. What's done is done. Coming around to your way of thinking does nothing for anyone now. Should we all agree that the Iraq war was wrong we still have to remain in Iraq and prevail in helping them. If my way is too slow than maybe you should be directing this energy to your elected senators and officials to move faster on what I am not sure.

You have any thoughts on the new book by the Good General? Good talking to you TM

On the WMD thing I can yield on that issue until more proof comes out to the contrary but on the overall merits of the war is where I reserve the right to let history show me either way it was a good/bad thing.

The thing is you can't just sweep the WMD thing under the rug. That was the core selling point for the war. Everyone knew Saddam's history and that was nowhere near enough to sell the public and congress on war. Active wmd programs and stockpiles of ready wmd's were the only part of the case that mattered.

At best, the administration is grossly incompetent for getting that wrong. At worst, they're liars. Either way, anyone who voted another four years for them should be ashamed.

While people outside the administration agreed and went along, they did so largely based on white house talking points. When you blow a decision as important as whether to go to war, you deserve to get run out of town.

Gecko:

I'm trying to interpret your response to my post. I'm still a bit confused, but this is what I came up with.

1. You believe the war was either to spread christianity or to spread democracy, and you believe those are appropriate reasons to go to war. You are happy the war was started for those reasons. Your religious and/or political views cause you to support these motives for toppling a government.

2. You believe Bush may or may not have committed war crimes, but since he's a republican, to look into it would be entirely worthless, because, in the words of Smokey from the movie Friday, it would be "bringing up old shit". The real question in your mind isn't whether Bush committed war crimes, but whether those war crimes had a coincidental effect of making the world safer decades down the road, less safe, or the same.

3. Unproven allegations that Bush was right are appropriate for starting an entire thread, but unproven responsive allegations that Bush is a war criminal may or may not ever prove to be true, but are entirely unworthy of discussion and a waste of everyone's time. They should be deleted from the thread about unproven allegations that Bush was right. It is simply republican bashing to question the war, but it is being a good american to support the war and sweep arguments of whether the war is illegal or not under the rug.

4. (You didn't say this but I'm assuming it from your responses) We should keep republicans in office unless and until it is conclusively proven that the war in Iraq did not make us safer 20, 30, or 50 years down the road. During those 20, 30, or 50 years of continuous republican control of all houses of government, we should simply sit back and wait to see how the history resolves itself. In this timeframe, we should never vote democrat for any office, whatsoever, because to do so would make us less safe, and would send a message to our emeny that we support and even really, really like terrorism, especially within our own borders. In 50 years, if it turns out the republicans were wrong, then we should possibly consider thinking about starting a discussion of whether it ok to talk about whether it was a bad idea in the first place. However, we should refrain from having this discussion, no matter how much we want to, because it won't be productive to dredge up old shit, it would only make America look bad, and would fuel the terrorists and their support of the democratic party.

Is that a fair interpretation of the words you typed in red?

EDIT: In case anyone here doesn't understand exactly what discussion Gecko feels we shouldn't have for at least 50 more years, this is a good starting point to prepare yourself for the discussion Gecko hopes we'll never have:

http://www.downingstreetmemo.com/

TM, you make a lot of assumptions about my thinking. I never said any of those things, you did.

I feel no desire to let my personal opinions be debated on this forum. I have a very open mind to both sides of the argument and have problem in watching both sides play it out, that's what democracies do.

The difference between you and I it appears you don't have an open mind and you are not willing to accept anything the other side has to say.

I never said to keep republicans in office for "X" years. I believe in whoever the American people vote for regardless of party affiliation.

As somoeone who doesn't see things maybe the way you do I have a hard time understanding what the other side what's to accomplish? What's the end goal here TM? You want the world to call Bush a murderer, traitor, war monger, what?

I wrote this last night then deleted it a few hours later because I didn't want to attack the anti war crowd but I will repost.

If the anti-war crowd garnered all their energy and used it for something good they might be able to change the future course of politics, society. Most anti-war people I hae met, generally, just like to complain about the decisions others make. I am sure this is a gross over generalization and I am sure you devote your personal time to causes that are close to you but this is just something I noticed. The next time the democrats stand up and speak to what your're saying will be the first time. I actually wish they would, but they won't.

A recent Harris poll indicated that Americans like what the democrats ideals stand for but think they make terrible leaders.

It's not for me to tell you what you should focus on but it just seems to me that you and other anti-bush/war crowd need to start focusing your energy on "your" elected officials and "your" party, whoever that is.

I would respect the other side much more if they put pressure on their leaders to not cave in and stand up and let your voices be heard. I would respect their thoughts more if they stood for someting. Cindy Sheehan seems to be your only voice, I respect her for what she's doing even if I disagree.

I can assure you that if the other side continues this complaining game without coming up solutions you will have another republican in office.

Again, what's your take on the former Air Force general's assertion about WMD in Syria. Thought it was interesting...you have any thoughts here?

TM, you make a lot of assumptions about my thinking. I never said any of those things, you did.

I feel no desire to let my personal opinions be debated on this forum. I have a very open mind to both sides of the argument and have problem in watching both sides play it out, that's what democracies do.

The difference between you and I it appears you don't have an open mind and you are not willing to accept anything the other side has to say.

I never said to keep republicans in office for "X" years. I believe in whoever the American people vote for regardless of party affiliation.

As somoeone who doesn't see things maybe the way you do I have a hard time understanding what the other side what's to accomplish? What's the end goal here TM? You want the world to call Bush a murderer, traitor, war monger, what?

I wrote this last night then deleted it a few hours later because I didn't want to attack the anti war crowd but I will repost.

If the anti-war crowd garnered all their energy and used it for something good they might be able to change the future course of politics, society. Most anti-war people I hae met, generally, just like to complain about the decisions others make. I am sure this is a gross over generalization and I am sure you devote your personal time to causes that are close to you but this is just something I noticed. The next time the democrats stand up and speak to what your're saying will be the first time. I actually wish they would, but they won't.

A recent Harris poll indicated that Americans like what the democrats ideals stand for but think they make terrible leaders.

It's not for me to tell you what you should focus on but it just seems to me that you and other anti-bush/war crowd need to start focusing your energy on "your" elected officials and "your" party, whoever that is.

I would respect the other side much more if they put pressure on their leaders to not cave in and stand up and let your voices be heard. I would respect their thoughts more if they stood for someting. Cindy Sheehan seems to be your only voice, I respect her for what she's doing even if I disagree.

I can assure you that if the other side continues this complaining game without coming up solutions you will have another republican in office.

Again, what's your take on the former Air Force general's assertion about WMD in Syria. Thought it was interesting...you have any thoughts here?

No offense, but I think the difference between you and me is that I'm honest with myself, and you're not.

You say you have an open mind, and then in the next sentence declare that you blindly support whoever the american people vote for. How is that an open mind? It sounds like a mind closed off to anything but whoever happens to be president at any given moment in time. Of course, I bet if you and I were having discussions back when Clinton was in power, you probably didn't blindly support him for eight straight years without question.

As for my goal. Simple. My goal is to see the world for what it really is, to understand what's going on around me and why its going on, not to blindly rally around the flag like a sheep. I see that as a solid goal. Do you?

As to whether democrats have good ideas but make bad leaders, all I can say is why is it that republicans get upset when people call them sheep, but they only think what Karl Rove told them to?

The ONLY reason you think democrats can't lead and/or chose bad candidates is because you were brainwashed by republican talking points "flip flopper, swift boater, etc." into thinking so. Fuck you if you deny it - you're only lying to yourself.

This is not an original thought of your own, no matter how upset you get at being labeled brainwashed. Its true. You are.

This is what I absolutely hate about republicans - the heads I win tails you lose mentality.

We can brainwash our followers, but all you'll do is insult them and mobilize them to vote if you call them brainwashed.

We can mobilize what we personally call our "whacko religious base", but when you point out what we are doing, we'll get them to vote against you for calling them "whackos" even though it was us that called them whackos in the first place.

We can start an illegal war and do whatever we want after it like erode freedoms, spy, etc., torture, etc., and if you get in our way, you're unpatriotic and need to be voted out of office.

We can do whatever we want, and if you so much as point it out, we'll destroy your ass and keep office for another 20 years.

You want to talk about former air force generals? OK, lets talk about General Shinshecki (sp?) who was against the war in Iraq and was forced into retirement because of it. Lets talk about Richard Clark, counterterrorism chief for the USA for approximately the last 20 years, who claims GWB put the Iraq war on the table before 9/11, and told his people to find a way to link 9/11 to Iraq, in order to start the war machine rolling.

In closing, I can assure you that if one side constantly keeps brainwashing their constituents, like you, into believing that anyone the other side ever even considers running as a candidate is a bad choice who won't keep us safe, you're right, republicans will stay in office another 20 years, there will be no middle class, a tiny nobility, and none of the freedoms our forefathers fought for.

PS: If it weren't such a disturbing topic in real life, I'd find it incredibly laughable that you think George W. "semi-retarded" Bush was a good candidate, while Al Gore and John Kerry were not good candidates. Exactly what is your criteria for choosing a candidate? Anyone that Rove doesn't destroy like his boss George = good. Anyone that Rove does destroy, like McCain, Gore and Kerry = terrible candidates? And you don't think you're brainwashed? REALLY? GWB was the best candidate of the 400 million americans to be president? OK, and you think you still have any credibility?

Wow, I think I just secured Gecko's ROY vote away from Tay.

I should of said that I support the procees of free and democratic elections not that I would blindly follow anyone.

I don't buy that your goal is simply to see the world the way it should. You are far too angry to have that as your goal. You want others to believe as you do, which ironically is what you accuse the Bush admin of.

I love talking to you in the Sports forums but you really are a poor debater in this fourm. You are not even good at changing the subject and have a difficult time staying on point.

I get really confused when you take the conversation to places I haven't even dreamed of. Too many gigantic leaps for me to follow or even respond to. I believe you do this not because of the way you interpreted my message but this is where you want the debate to play out.

you have an agenda and try everything you can to steer it to that direction.

I believe you have a right to feel the way you do and have no problem letting your way of thinking playing out. We feel differently about this issue. Can you say the same about me? Can you tell me I have a right to my way of thinking?

We can keep this up but we both know we are not going to change each other's minds. There's a lot about the way I think and feel you don't know about. I choose to keep these thoughts private as I see no use in letting them known here.

I really don't care if you think I am brainwashed or whatever. Anyone reading these posts knows the deal.

I'll ask again until I get an answer. What your thoughts on the Iraqi Air Force general and his assertions?

I don't play one sided games. If you want my thoughts on that stuff, you need to read all about the Downing Street Memos and give me your thoughts on the issue, without saying words to the effect of "history will show if it was a good idea or not".

I want to know from you the following: If GWB lied about his fear of WMD (not whether they had them but whether we had to go to war to avoid us or our interests being attacked by them) in order to go to war for ulterior motives, does that make him a war criminal and this war an illegal war.

I never get a straight answer on this one.

Also, I know this is off topic, but I'm interested in your opinion on this: When Clinton got a blowjob, the republican controlled congress absolutely demanded and forced him to take an oath of honesty, made him answer questions about the blojob, and then impeached him.

When Bush wiretapped american citizens without a warrant and congress called attorney general Gonzales to appear before them, the very same republican controlled congress absolutely demanded that he NOT be made to swear an oath of honesty before he spoke.

Why would the same republican congress absolutely demand Clinton swear an oath of honesty before he testified about a blowjob, and then absolutely demand that Gonzales NOT swear an oath of honesty before he testified about national security and possible constitutional violations against american citizens?

I'll hang up and listen.

I don't play one sided games. If you want my thoughts on that stuff, you need to read all about the Downing Street Memos and give me your thoughts on the issue, without saying words to the effect of "history will show if it was a good idea or not".

I want to know from you the following: If GWB lied about his fear of WMD (not whether they had them but whether we had to go to war to avoid us or our interests being attacked by them) in order to go to war for ulterior motives, does that make him a war criminal and this war an illegal war.

I never get a straight answer on this one.

Also, I know this is off topic, but I'm interested in your opinion on this: When Clinton got a blowjob, the republican controlled congress absolutely demanded and forced him to take an oath of honesty, made him answer questions about the blojob, and then impeached him.

When Bush wiretapped american citizens without a warrant and congress called attorney general Gonzales to appear before them, the very same republican controlled congress absolutely demanded that he NOT be made to swear an oath of honesty before he spoke.

Why would the same republican congress absolutely demand Clinton swear an oath of honesty before he testified about a blowjob, and then absolutely demand that Gonzales NOT swear an oath of honesty before he testified about national security and possible constitutional violations against american citizens?

I'll hang up and listen.

You first answer my question on the iraqi general and I will think about some of your deeper questions.

Gecko:

I answered your question in my very first post in this thread. I indicated that whether there were WMD is not an issue - its a smokscreen.

Why should I go into my deepest and innermost feelings about a smokescreen?

Whether Iraq had WMD or not is a worthless question. It doesn't matter. It never did matter, and it never will matter. Its not why we went to war. It didn't keep Bush up at night, worrying about mushroom clouds.

But I'll try to answer your question: If this guy was right that Iraq had WMD, never used them, and then when we invaded they were sent to Syria, I'd say the war was a mistake, because it took WMD out of the hands of someone who had them but wasn't using them, and put them in unknown hands, that may end up using them against us.

How's that?

this is an epic battle between two WTF friends on different sides of the clone war.
http://movies.israel.net/sw-rots/ls_fight.jpg

What problem do you have with McCain? Did the Karl Rove lies about him having an illegitimate black baby work on you too?
Haha, no. I think he is fake. It's my opinion that he constantly jumps across party barriers to stir things up and bring himself attention. I want a true Republican in there.

By the way, I didn't even know about the Karl Rove thing. There is another one of Bush's flaws. Of course you can't vote for McCain. He's not a true Republican,he acts on his conscience as opposed to following a strict party line. Jeez,what kind of president would that be?

Skelly, "you" said that if they found out evidence to the contrary about there being WMD in IRAQ you may change your position again.

FWIW: I hear there is some proof and damning evidence from Saddam himself that there were in fact WMD's. Info to be released Feb 17th.
This could turn out to be nothing or be the holy grail some were looking for on the WMD issue.


http://www.nysun.com/article/27110

The House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence is studying 12 hours of audio recordings between Saddam Hussein and his top advisers that may provide clues to the whereabouts of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.

The committee has already confirmed through the intelligence community that the recordings of Saddam's voice are authentic, according to its chairman, Rep. Peter Hoekstra of Michigan, who would not go into detail about the nature of the conversations or their context. They were provided to his committee by a former federal prosecutor, John Loftus, who says he received them from a former American military intelligence analyst.

Mr. Loftus will make the recordings available to the public on February 17 at the annual meeting of the Intelligence Summit, of which he is president. On the organization's Web site, Mr. Loftus is quoted as promising that the recordings "will be able to provide a few definitive answers to some very important - and controversial - weapons of mass destruction questions." Contacted yesterday by The New York Sun, Mr. Loftus would only say that he delivered a CD of the recordings to a representative of the committee, and the following week the committee announced that it was reopening the investigation into weapons of mass destruction.

The audio recordings are part of new evidence the House intelligence committee is piecing together that has spurred Mr. Hoekstra to reopen the question of whether Iraq had the biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons American inspectors could not turn up. President Bush called off the hunt for those weapons last year and has conceded that America has yet to find evidence of the stockpiles.

Mr. Hoekstra has already met with a former Iraqi air force general, Georges Sada, who claims that Saddam used civilian airplanes to ferry chemical weapons to Syria in 2002. Mr. Hoekstra is now talking to Iraqis who Mr. Sada claims took part in the mission, and the congressman said the former air force general "should not just be discounted." Mr. Hoekstra also said he is in touch with other people who have come forward to the committee - Iraqis and Americans - who claim that the weapons inspectors may have overlooked other key sites and evidence. He has also asked the director of national intelligence, John Negroponte, to declassify some 35,000 boxes of Iraqi documents obtained in the war that have yet to be translated.

"I still believe there are key individuals who have not been debriefed and there are key sites that have never been investigated. I know there are 35,000 boxes of documents that have never been translated. I am frustrated," Mr. Hoekstra said.

He added, "Right now, it's not my job to investigate the specific claims. We are doing this a little with Sada. But we still don't fully understand what happened in Iraq three years after the invasion, three years after we control the country. There are enough people coming to the committee, Sada is not the only one, saying, 'you really ought to look under this rock.' This gives me cause to take up the issue again."

Mr. Hoekstra is one of many who believe the question of what happened to Saddam's weapons of mass destruction is still unresolved. Last week Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld voiced similar doubts at the National Press Club. "We have not found them. We also have found a number of things we didn't imagine. We found a bunch of jet airplanes buried in Iraq. Who buries airplanes? I mean, really. So I don't know what we'll find in the months and years ahead. It could be anything," he said.

The former chief of the State Department's Iraq Intelligence Unit, Wayne White, and Mr. Rumsfeld's former undersecretary of defense for policy, Douglas Feith, have told the Sun they believe the question of what happened to the weapons is still open. The former chief of staff of the Israel Defense Force, Moshe Ya'alon, told the Sun in December that he believed Saddam sent chemical weapons to Syria before the war in 2002. The last chief American weapons inspector, Charles Duelfer, said in the preamble to his final report that looting of sites may have severely weakened his team's ability to piece together a complete picture of Iraq's weapons program.

Mr. Hoekstra said he is not yet prepared to say President Bush was premature in calling off the hunt for the weapons last year, but conceded that his inquiries may lead him to that conclusion if some of the leads offered to his committee check out. He also said the White House has been supportive of his inquiry.

The chairman of the House intelligence panel said he is frustrated with the American intelligence community's lack of curiosity on following up these leads, particularly the story from Mr. Sada. "I talked to one person relatively high up in DNI, and I asked him about this and asked are they going to follow up, and he looked at me and said, 'No we don't think so.' At this point, I guess you guys don't get it.

"I am trying to find out if our postwar intelligence was as bad as our pre-war intelligence, " Mr. Hoekstra said.

What problem do you have with McCain? Did the Karl Rove lies about him having an illegitimate black baby work on you too?
Haha, no. I think he is fake. It's my opinion that he constantly jumps across party barriers to stir things up and bring himself attention. I want a true Republican in there.

By the way, I didn't even know about the Karl Rove thing. There is another one of Bush's flaws. Of course you can't vote for McCain. He's not a true Republican,he acts on his conscience as opposed to following a strict party line. Jeez,what kind of president would that be?

I hate McCain more than I hate Bush. Skelly is right on, he's fake and does anything he can to project his image on hotbutton topics. He's worse than Hillary IMO.

Wait a second. you guys would hate a politician for being fake?

ALL POLITICIANS ARE FAKE!

that's like hating air for being see-thru.

I'll re-support the war if Iraq was a proven threat.

Talk about flip-flopping, damn.

You're not flip flopping, you're just going by the facts you're givin. You cant reasonablely believe in something, if theres nothing to make you believe it.