Originally Posted By mrichmondj The problem with the arguments leading up to the Iraq War is that all of the information and intelligence presented was based entirely on supporting a predetermined outcome -- removal of Sadaam Hussein by military force. There was never any intention of presenting evidence that would support any other path to resolving conflict. It is really irrelevant whether the intelligence was accurate, or not. What is relevant is that intelligence that did not support the predermined outcome for war was not considered or presented, and there was plenty of intelligence available that contradicted the desires of the administration. This is not uncommon in the world of politics. The Spanish American War was escalated based upon false information presented about the bombing of USS Maine and the Tonkin Gulf incident was fabricated by politicians to fan the flames of the Vietnam War. What I find abominable about this whole episode is that the American people are not largely supportive of waging war. The administration manipulated information and preyed on the fears of a population still scarred by the 9/11 terrorist attacks to push through a war agenda that was completely unnecessary and will be damaging to the way of life in the United States for years to come. Regardless of the outcome in Iraq and any decisions for troop withdrawal, the American people deserve nothing less than a full apology for being deliberately misled into believing that military action in Iraq would ever lead to greater national security.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <I'm trying to say it in a less confrontational way. But it is the same as I said before.> At first you said that Secretary Powell admitted he knew the material was incorrect when he presented it. Now you're just claiming that he presented it as an absolute verified fact (which, of course, is just your opinion) when he should have known it wasn't. That seems like a change to me.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Regardless of the outcome in Iraq and any decisions for troop withdrawal, the American people deserve nothing less than a full apology for being deliberately misled into believing that military action in Iraq would ever lead to greater national security.> It's only your opinion that we were deliberately misled. There's no actual evidence for it.
Originally Posted By jonvn "At first you said that Secretary Powell admitted he knew the material was incorrect when he presented it." He knew that he did not have it verified, and was unsure as to its correctness. And presented it as fact. That he did not know, and presented it as such, meaning he was not being truthful about what he was saying.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <He knew that he did not have it verified, and was unsure as to its correctness.> He has stated he did have it verified. He and Wilkerson stated they threw out everything they didn't feel was verified. You don't have any evidence that the Bush Administration deliberately lied about Iraq's WMD's, but you keep asserting it as fact. That's less than truthful.
Originally Posted By jonvn "He has stated he did have it verified." How could he have it verified when it didn't exist? So that really doesn't make sense right there. "You don't have any evidence that the Bush Administration deliberately lied about Iraq's WMD's" I posted a link about it just previously. If it's serious enough, it'll come out in the investigations.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <How could he have it verified when it didn't exist?> Multiple sources claimed it did, and circumstantial evidence pointed toward it being true. <I posted a link about it just previously.> Which consisted of multiple unsubstantiated claims. It's odd that you have such a double standard between what Secretary Powell could present as "fact" and what you can.
Originally Posted By jonvn "It's odd that you have such a double standard between what Secretary Powell could present as "fact" and what you can." Perhaps because I'm not the Secretary of State presenting to the United Nations Security Council on the question of whether or not to launch a war that could result in the deaths of thousands upon thousands? There's a slight difference in audience and intent here.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Perhaps because I'm not the Secretary of State presenting to the United Nations Security Council on the question of whether or not to launch a war that could result in the deaths of thousands upon thousands?> and free millions. So you can "lie" because it's not about anything important, huh?
Originally Posted By mrichmondj So, what about the millions in China, Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Venezuela, Sudan, etc. who are living under an oppressive regime? Why aren't we at the U.N. with all of our wonderful intelligence to free those people? Oh, that's right, Iraq has a huge oil field underneath that could be conveniently exploited by the Texas oil men that are pulling the puppet's strings in the White House right now. Forget I asked the question.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <So, what about the millions in China, Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Venezuela, Sudan, etc. who are living under an oppressive regime?> One, we are at the UN asking for them to act against both Iran and North Korea. Two, none of those countries are routinely violating a cease fire agreement with us like Saddam's Iraq was. Three, what has that to do with the baseless charge that the Bush Administration lied about Iraq?
Originally Posted By mrichmondj And again, none of those countries have oil except for Iran. Which is probably why you hear more saber rattling about Iran than any of the other members of the "Axis of Evil." That's where the oil companies would like to go next. Too bad for them that things kind've got screwed up in Iraq, otherwise we'd probably already be dropping bombs on Tehran to help beef up their profits.
Originally Posted By jonvn "and free millions. " We have freed no one. We have unleashed a civil war on a nation and three in the region. They were no worse of under saddam, and possibly even better off. "So you can "lie" because it's not about anything important, huh?" I don't even know where this comes from. But if you are implying I am lying, that is false. "So, what about the millions in China, Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Venezuela, Sudan, etc. who are living under an oppressive regime?" They get a pass, of course, because, um, well....um....yeah.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <And again, none of those countries have oil except for Iran.> Venezuela has oil, but don't let any facts get in your way. The fact that Iran is a major sponsor of terrorism is irrelevant, right?
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <We have freed no one. We have unleashed a civil war on a nation and three in the region. They were no worse of under saddam, and possibly even better off.> I disagree. <But if you are implying I am lying, that is false.> It's just as false as your claim that the Bush administration lied about Iraq.
Originally Posted By mrichmondj China, North Korea, and the former Soviet Union export more arms to terrorists than Iran. What makes Iran more "major" than those countries.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <China, North Korea, and the former Soviet Union export more arms to terrorists than Iran.> You're just making this up, right? <What makes Iran more "major" than those countries.> Ask the State Department: "Iran remained the most active state sponsor of terrorism." <a href="http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/crt/2005/64337.htm" target="_blank">http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/ crt/2005/64337.htm</a>
Originally Posted By mrichmondj Why would I pay any attention to the propaganda of the State Dept, which is just a mouthpiece for the executive branch of government? This is the same executive branch that censors government scientists who do research on global warming. This is the same executive branch that fired the military attorney who won his case in the Supreme Court of the United States defending a detainee from Guantanamo Bay. What makes you think they don't censor their website materials to match the adgenda, too? But that's OK. Feel free to drink in all the propaganda if it makes you more comfortable. I'm sure there were plenty of Germans happy to drink up the Nazi propaganda while the gas chambers were pumping out the dead. Having traveled a bit in the Middle East and been face to face with the military threats of all the countries in the Middle East and Asia, I can tell you that Iran is not the world's most significant sponsor of terrorism or the proliferation of weapons to terrorists.
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< Ask the State Department: >>> I'm glad that you find the State Department a credible source. Let me provide a link and quotes as to what State thinks about Iraq: <a href="http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/tw/tw_921.html" target="_blank">http://travel.state.gov/travel /cis_pa_tw/tw/tw_921.html</a> "Iraq ... remains very dangerous. ... Attacks against military and civilian targets throughout Iraq continue, including in the International (or “Greenâ€) Zone. Targets include convoys en-route to venues, hotels, restaurants, police stations, checkpoints, foreign diplomatic missions, international organizations and other locations with expatriate personnel. These attacks have resulted in deaths and injuries of American citizens, including those doing humanitarian work. In addition, there have been planned and random killings, as well as extortions and kidnappings. U.S. citizens have been kidnapped and several were subsequently murdered by terrorists in Iraq. U.S. citizens and other foreigners continue to be targeted by insurgent groups and opportunistic criminals for kidnapping and murder. Military operations continue. There are daily attacks against Multinational Forces - Iraq (MNF-I), Iraqi Security Forces and Iraqi Police throughout the country. There is credible information that terrorists are targeting civil aviation. Civilian and military aircraft arriving at and departing from Baghdad International Airport for other major cities in Iraq have been subjected to small arms and missiles. ... Anyone choosing to utilize civilian aircraft to enter or depart or travel within Iraq should be aware of this potential threat, as well as the extremely high risk to road transportation described below. As a result of a recent security incident at the Baghdad International Airport (BIAP), the U.S. Embassy is prohibiting all U.S. government employees from departing BIAP on commercial airlines until further notice. All vehicular travel in Iraq is extremely dangerous. There have been numerous attacks on civilian vehicles, as well as military convoys. Attacks occur throughout the day ... There continues to be heavy use of Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs), (especially new-type Explosively Formed Penetrators (EFP), and/or mines on roads, concealed in plastic bags, boxes, soda cans, dead animals, and in other ways to blend with the road. Grenades and explosives have been thrown into vehicles from overpasses, particularly in crowded areas. Overland travel should be undertaken only when absolutely necessary and with the appropriate security. >>> Do you think that things are still going "just great" in Iraq? Do you think we're making progress? Do you think we're being welcomed with "sweets and flowers" as some claimed we would be? Do you think that Iraq or her citizens are better off now than they were four years ago? If so, have you asked a family member of the hundreds of thousands of people that have been killed since then?
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< Having traveled a bit in the Middle East and been face to face with the military threats of all the countries in the Middle East and Asia, I can tell you that Iran is not the world's most significant sponsor of terrorism or the proliferation of weapons to terrorists. >>> Why would you pay any heed to your own personal experience when the noise machine tells you otherwise?
