What Happened to Some of Ithaca's Posts?

[BuzzH]

This post seems a bit out of character for you gibson...really.

You said, "they had intelligence"

Intelligence? Thats a pretty big contradiction in terms isnt it? That "intelligence" must not have been that "intelligent", know what I mean?

Whats the big deal if it was a lie or not?

Well, a couple things, if the Administration is willing to lie, or mislead, to get their way on an issue as big as war, what else are they lieing, cheating, and stealing from the U.S. citizens?

Also, I cant think of anything more important than correct and accurate "intelligence" when one decides to committ American lives, money, etc. to war.

If they werent 100% sure on what was going on in Iraq, dont make the claim. Let the citizenship decide based on what they DO know, not what they THINK they know.

Even in the light of not finding WMD's or terrorist ties, they administration continues to shift their priority and justification for the war. Covering a lie with another one. Then, to top it all off the Bush Administration starts blaming the intelligence gathering organizations, trying to pass the buck.

I'm with 1-pointer, if they do find something I'll have restored faith in Bush and his Administration. I try to live my life being an honest person, and I dont think its too much to ask for the leaders of the United States to do the same.

 

[JoseCuervo]

It is funny about the 100% accuracy, and the "Letter" in Bush's State of the Union address, that he used to justify the claims. Every time I get that "Nigerian Letter" offering me 35% of $20 million, if I will help the former Prince by providing my Bank Account, I think of Bush's Nigerian letter, and how he was duped into believing it was true.

 

[dgibson]

Elkgunner, the difference between those countries and Iraq is perceived threat to the U.S. As I stated in an older thread, those regimes deserve ass-kicking as much as Saddam's, but if we did so we'd be accused of empire-building. Look at the question of Iraq...Bush's published, primary justification of invading was the WMD's. Now that he can't produce them, the world forgets the wood chippers, mass graves, and professional rapists and says we have no reason to be there.

Buzz, I see your point. The use of the word "intelligence" is in the classic military sense, meaning "a collection of information that has been represented as fact by apparently reliable sources." I think you'll agree that very few decisions having to do with war are made on 100% accurate facts. Most such actions take place with some degree of uncertainty. For a non-related example, look to the Bay of Pigs. That turned a little sour, too, but Kennedy made the best choice he could based on the "intelligence" he had, and, yes, politics.

I'm not saying lying about it is wrong...if it is a lie than it's a damned lie. What I'm saying is that I'm not convinced that, just because the WMD's haven't been found, it's automatically proven to be false; nor does it prove that the administration intentionally LIED about it. They may also be guilty of badly misunderstanding the facts, or making a few too many leaps of faith, or just plain old blatant stupidity. None of those things make them liars.

 

[FLIPPER]

Darren...are you trying to kill another thread?

Let's just end it all...start where the sand begins in the west, go to where it ends in the east and NUKE it all!

No more Middle East problems...simple isn't it.

 

[BuzzH]

dgibson, I agree, theres still time for them to find WMD's and ties to terrorists.

What I question is why the WMD's and terrorist ties were brought up to begin with?

Rumsy, Powell, and Bush all said, "there is definately WMD's and a "threat" to U.S. citizens".

If they were sure enough to state that, they should be sure enough to find something, one would think???

Also, I find it funny that other countries werent convinced enough to back us. Not that they would necessarily even if they new for sure that there were WMD's. But, they sure did back us in Gulf War I...remember?

Even now, the administration, and even Bush, is saying "well, who cares that we havent found anything, saddam still is a bad guy."

I agree that sadam is a bad guy, and that alonw would have been all the truth I needed to hear from the Administration for justification. Even just the issue of oil is a justification.

But, it would seem, more likely than not, that Bush at the very least stretched the truth and used bad information for his decision. Thats not good, and I wont cut him an ounce of slack...dont tell me what you THINK you know, tell me what you DO know.

He's captain of the ship, but from his actions, it sure likes like he'll be the first one to jump a lifeboat.

 

[Yukon Hunter]

Well.....
When Diane Sawyer interviewed Bush, she said that the Administration had stated as FACT that there were weapons of mass destruction. Now their stance is that Saddam could have moved to acquire them (and who couldn't?). Bush's response- "What's the difference?"
I'd say the difference is one could be construed as an imminent threat (though not really), where as the other is absolutely nothing.
Pretty much any two-bit dictator could move to acquire WMD's. So why kill thousands of innocent Iraqi's and hundreds of Americans? Better yet, why put 120,000 troops into Iraq without sound reasoning, and only 10,000 into Afghanistan to look for someone that is certainly a bigger threat?
Let's back it up a step- if the Administration was worried that Saddam could sell his WMD's to bin Laden, and bin Laden could use them on the U.S., and bin Laden had already attacked U.S. interests several times, why, oh, why, go after Saddam instead of the imminent threat?
In order to bolster the Administration's reasons to go to war, facts were secondary. When Cheney (the big money-grubber) was on Meet-the-Press just before the start of hostilities, he said (without proof) that "Iraq has, in fact, re-constituted Nuclear Weapons". When confronted
with a report from the International Atomic Energy Agency that directly contradicted him, he said simply "[IAEA Director] Elbaradei is, frankly, wrong."
Good call, Dick. And I do mean, Dick.

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 12-17-2003 14:13: Message edited by: Yukon Hunter ]</font>

 

[Calif. Hunter]

I could care less if we ever find the WMDs. Saddam had chemical weapons in the past, and used them against Iranians, Kurds and his own people. He continued to play the game as if he had them. His aides have said that they were convinced he had them, and he certainly wanted his not-so-friendly neighbors to believe that he had them.

He also had plenty of time, due to the dithering by the UN, to move, hide or dismantle them. It's a decent sized country, and lots of room to hide a few canisters of chemicals.

AS far as the hypocrisy of economics, look at all the money being made off of Saddam's Iraq, and tell again how altruistic France and Russia are...

How many billions are owed to them by his regime?

 

[cjcj]

If you read Cali hunters last post, is there anyone that doesn`t think Saddam himself is to blame for the war? Why would he not let the inspectors do their job? Our gov`t gave this "fruitcake" Saddam every available out to resolve this issue[WMD`s] We tried extending deadlines, asked him to resign etc. Saddam forced the issue IMO, If he had nothing, then let the inspection`s go on as [per treaty agreed on] then make himself look good and honest, and us the liar`s, but he wouldn`t do that, so i say this ignorant madman brought it all on by himself, he had the trump card, the winning hand, and still lost.

 

[Yukon Hunter]

cj-
Absolutely- Saddam is to blame (so is Junior, but that's another subject). In a way, you can understand his position- if he'd have come right out and said he didn't have any WMD's, even leaving the U.S. aside for a moment, what would have stopped the Iranians or (more likely) the Kurds from waltzing right into Baghdad?
Saddam was a wanker, and he deserves whatever the Hague (or whoever) gives him. The problem is George's war took huge resources away from finding the true enemy of the American people.

 

[JoseCuervo]

DGibson, The Thread Killer!!!

If you are not careful, I will change this topic to Dam Breaching...!!!


The problem with this whole war, is the unclear reason. You even said it was for WMD, but if they weren't found, then it was Wood Chippers, and if that isn't the reason, then maybe "percieved threat".

That is the problem with lying. You just have to keep telling more lies, or changing the lies. "The Truth Shall Set You Free"! The perceived threat came from bad intelligence.

Hell, if you want to worry about perceived threats, look at Canada. They have a huge military, located within striking distance of our borders. They talk funny, and they have Thanksgiving on the wrong day.

I perceive North Korea to be a bigger threat. I also percieve Sudan to have more Wood Chippers. And I percieve Pakistan to have WMD's.

Is there any reason why Bush (and his supporters) just don't come out and say it was for Oil and for revenge for Bush Sr.?

As for the UN defiance, please, don't make that excuse. If the UN really cared about the defiance, then the UN would have lead the coalition's formation.

And CJ,
Ask yourself, if you heard the UN wanted to inspect all of the US Military installations, and factories, what do you think Bush would say? Hell, what would you say? I bet you and the resto of the Savage Nation would be up in arms, if a UN inspector even drove down your street.

 

[Yukon Hunter]

Gunner-
Eh?

 

[JoseCuervo]

CJ,

The US has signed all sorts of treaties, and do you really think you would sit quietly as white Toyotas with UN on the side, and lots of soldiers with Blue Helmets and funny accents went snooping around? If you would, then I have mis-judged you, as I somehow thought you valued our soverngnity (sp?).

Cali,
Why was Saddam Public Enemy #1? Do you not think there are WORSE people out there, who are bigger threats? If not, then that was justification enough. If so, then who is the next Public Enemy #1, and why are you not calling for the invasion of that?

 

[BHR]

IT,

I stand by my comments, no appology on this one. I'm sure Pointer remembers the topic. Why hasn't he come to your defense? You bring the topic back up if your want to defend your comments.

Gunner,

I'm sure all the countries you list are paying particularly close attention to what is happening in Iraq, yes?

Buzz,

No comment on Lieberman? Honest, big on enviroment, what about him is not for you to like? I wonder? Nah, couldn't be that.

Paul

 

[1_pointer]

I remember a post on West Nile and sage grouse. But, I'm not sure what I would be defending or why?

BHR, you're not trying to insinuate that someone would not vote for a candidate for anti-Semantic reasons are ya?

Just think what it would do for dental care!

(I know, bad joke.)

'Gunner- I'm for the US taking over the world...after I get an environmental law degree. Can you imagine the bank I could make with a law suit on the water quality in India, or on the lack of EIS for the Three Gorges Dam!

 

[Calif. Hunter]

Elkgunner - I do think that Saddam was perceived as the biggest threat to us, after Osama. Osama was busy ducking and running (and still is) and Saddam hated us. Was it such a stretch to feel that he would provide something/anything to Al Quaida if it could hurt us and our credibility? From the stories I have heard, he was the cruelest and most saddistic tyrant out there. Maybe there's worse - I just haven't heard about them.

North Korea is the next biggest threat in my opinion. Like we tried with Saddam, diplomacy and negotiation should be the first means used to resolve the issues. If that doesn't work, then we may have to go after them. I hope to God that we don't, as that would probably turn into a really nasty war and I do not feel that Americans today have either the stomach or the attention span for a real war. If it can't be over in a few days with few causalties, then we lose whatever determination we might have had.

 

[Ten Bears]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> I find it funny that other countries werent convinced enough to back us. Not that they would necessarily even if they new for sure that there were WMD's. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Weren't Germany, France, and Russia selling Saddam equipment????? Why would they back a war against one of their clients???

 

[dgibson]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>anti-Semantic<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Yep, I admit it, I'm anti-semantic, too. I am a firm believer in saying what you mean and not playing semantic games with word definitions.

Oh, did you mean anti-Semitic?

 

[Ten Bears]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> I'm anti-semantic, too. I am a firm believer in saying what you mean and not playing semantic games with word definitions.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Me too.

 

[Calif. Hunter]

Why does everyone keep saying it was for oil? I hadn't noticed any long lines at the gas stations lately. In fact, over 50% of the gas used in California comes from Bakersfield! Does any American oil company operate in Iraq? Does anyone really believe that Bush is dumb enough to have done this for so transparent a reason?

Why is it so tough to believe that the man takes his job seriously, and is doing his best to protect American lives? Because none of you are that straightforward or altruistic? Because you are all so jaded that you trust no one?
The man may not be a genius. He may not be the most eloquent. He may make errors. But I believe that he is honestly doing the best job he can. Maybe that's not good enough for you, and that's okay. But all this "it was for oil" crap gets real old and sounds so much like the pot-smoking pacifists of the 60s that it cracks me up. "Big Business" is out to get us all.

 

[cjcj]

Gunner how can you even make the comparison? [U.N. checking USA military installation`s] The fact is Iraq had signed a surrender/ treaty after the gulf war and they would not/did not honor that treaty. That is why this war happened, and thats the truth. Even if GW Bush wanted a war for oil or revenge for Bush sr. he could not and would not have went to war if Saddam had "complied" with the treaty.