Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Why would I pay any attention to the propaganda of the State Dept, which is just a mouthpiece for the executive branch of government?> Why should anyone pay attention to your accusations, which are nothing but left wing paranoia and propaganda? Are you denying that Iran is a supporter of terrorism?
Originally Posted By jonvn "It's just as false as your claim that the Bush administration lied about Iraq." When you claim that you disagree that Iraq is in a civil war, and that no one has been "freed," then your statement regarding what I said as being false does not hold much water.
Originally Posted By ecdc Douglas, try as you might, there is simply no consistency in the U.S. policy towards Iraq vs. plenty of other countries where people are not free. The reason you keep talking about "freeing millions" is because that's what the message has morphed into since there were no WMDs. It's the only reason for us to stay so that Bush doesn't lose face and have a shattered legacy (too late). At the end of the day, if you truly believe in freedom for everyone, then you can't justify singling out Iraq above other countries.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <When you claim that you disagree that Iraq is in a civil war, and that no one has been "freed," then your statement regarding what I said as being false does not hold much water.> In post 27, you said, "Except it is what Colin Powell had to say on the subject. He knew when he was giving that speech at the UN that we did not have all our ducks in a row." You stated this as an absolute verified fact, but it's not. By your criteria, you're therefore lying.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Douglas, try as you might, there is simply no consistency in the U.S. policy towards Iraq vs. plenty of other countries where people are not free.> Every country is unique, and US policy towards each country is unique. Iraq posed a unique threat, and presented a unique opportunity. <The reason you keep talking about "freeing millions" is because that's what the message has morphed into since there were no WMDs.> The message has always included freeing millions, but it's also included defeating terrorists and ending threats.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>Every country is unique, and US policy towards each country is unique. Iraq posed a unique threat, and presented a unique opportunity.<< Given that there were no WMDs, what unique threat would that be? And why, at this point, do the vast majority of Americans, not to mention the rest of the world, disagree with you?
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Given that there were no WMDs, what unique threat would that be?> The President laid it all out back in 2002: <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html" target="_blank">http://www.whitehouse.gov/news /releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html</a> Yes, he was wrong about Iraq having stockpiles of WMD's. But he wasn't wrong about the rest. <And why, at this point, do the vast majority of Americans, not to mention the rest of the world, disagree with you?> I'm not sure that they do.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 A solid majority of Americans say that invading Iraq was a mistake, which obviously disagrees with you (in more ways than one).
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <A solid majority of Americans say that invading Iraq was a mistake, which obviously disagrees with you (in more ways than one).> Someone may have claimed a poll said that, but that doesn't make it so.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Ah - if the polls (and it's certainly multiple polls by this time) disagree with you, they must not be accurate. Noted.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Ah - if the polls (and it's certainly multiple polls by this time) disagree with you, they must not be accurate.> They're probably not accurate if they do agree with me. Polls can be shaped by the way questions are asked, and who gets asked.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh To elaborate, let's say a poll now shows that 70% of respondents feel the Iraq war was a mistake. Does that mean that 70% disagree with me? Probably not. Many of those 70% probably would not feel that way if WMD's had been found, as we believed they would be. Also, quite a few of them probably believe the war was justified even though we didn't find WMD's, but the way we went about it wasn't the best. What is probably most certain, however, is that they don't disagree with my statement, "Every country is unique, and US policy towards each country is unique. Iraq posed a unique threat, and presented a unique opportunity", as ecdc claimed.
Originally Posted By mrichmondj Yup, Iraq posed a unique opportunity to enrich the ExxonMobil and Halliburton moguls of the world. And since they bought and paid to get the current administration election, that's the opportunity that they pursued.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Yup, Iraq posed a unique opportunity to enrich the ExxonMobil and Halliburton moguls of the world.> If that was the Bush Administration's only goal, they could have done it much cheaper and easier, by installing a puppet government immediately after deposing Saddam. But again, don't let facts stand in the way of your opinions.
Originally Posted By mrichmondj Why do it cheaper if the whole idea is to shovel as much government money into the hands of defense contractors as possible? That would be contrary to the aims of VP Cheney and others. And as long as there is chaos in Iraq, the contractors can keep going back asking for more money to rebuild the infrastructure which they have yet to come close to restoring after over 3 years being paid taxpayer money to fix basic necessities like electricity and water supplies. Meanwhile, the campuses of our defense industry headquarters continue to be gilded with extravagances that are incredibly obscene. Go visit the headquarters of your local defense contractor and let me know if you think your tax dollars are being well spent there.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Why do it cheaper if the whole idea is to shovel as much government money into the hands of defense contractors as possible?> When did ExxonMobil or Halliburton become a defense contractor? Last I heard, Exxon produced gas, and Halliburton serviced oil fields.
Originally Posted By mrichmondj Once again, the people you "hear" things from aren't all that bright. But just to keep you in the know, Halliburton has the contract with DOD for a large number of Iraq infrastructure, logistics, and security operations. ExxonMobil is the larges provider of fuel to the armed services under DOD contracts. So, yes, both companies are "defense contractors." Not that these facts really make any difference in shaping your opinion.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <What is probably most certain, however, is that they don't disagree with my statement, "Every country is unique, and US policy towards each country is unique. Iraq posed a unique threat, and presented a unique opportunity", as ecdc claimed.> I think you're wrong. I doubt most americans would agree that Iraq posed a unique threat. What's so unique about a country that didn't have WMD's and couldn't threaten the US homeland? There are lots of those. That they supported terrorism? There are lots of those, several worse than Iraq. That leaves the UN resolutions, which most Americans frankly don't care much about. Most Americans, now that they know the actual threat that Iraq posed, would hardly see it as "unique."
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Once again, the people you "hear" things from aren't all that bright.> I think they are plenty bright. I just don't think they spend much time keeping track of weird liberal conspiracy theories. Halliburton and ExxonMobil could make just as much money off a prosperous Iraq as they could a war torn one.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <What's so unique about a country that didn't have WMD's and couldn't threaten the US homeland?> You know, I really think you're smart enough to know the answer to that question, but I'll answer anyway. To start, we didn't know they didn't have WMD's. Unlike many countries, Iraq had possessed them, and used them, both on neighboring countries and its own people. We believed, incorrectly, that they had them and believed, correctly, that they were attempting to get more. But besides the WMD's, there is Iraq's geography. Lying as it does between Iran and Syria, if made prosperous and free, it could be an agent of change for good in the region. However, its proximity to Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, as well as Israel, means it would be a potential danger to those nations if it remained a hostile nation. Finally, there is its oil to consider. If Iraq had been able to bluff and scheme its way out of the sanctions and military containment imposed on it, then Saddam would have been free to use Iraq's oil revenues to rebuild his armies and WMD arsenals, and expand his support of terrorism. Iraq's oil fields meant we could not contain it the way we could Cuba or North Korea.
