Originally Posted By RoadTrip The Shiites and the Sunnis despise each other. Always have, always will. The only way Iraq as configured could be kept together was through the brutality and fear of Saddam's government. He may have bee a ruthless and despotic dictator, but that is exactly what Iraq needed. That, or let it split according to its natural ethnic divisions.
Originally Posted By jonvn That's easy, but the thing is there are a lot of mixed neighborhoods, and people are going to be screaming about the land they once owned in a nation now split apart.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Gadzuux's statement, that the Bush administration lied, is an opinion, not a black-and-white incorrect statement, particularly since he did say "administration" rather than just "Bush."> Gadzuux's statement was that they lied about some specific things - things which the Bush administration could not have lied about, because they were true - Saddam did have nuclear ambitions and he did support terrorism. <My statement that Iraq was less tied to Al Qaeda and less supportive of terrorists than other countries in the region is at least as much "fact" with at least as much to back it up (Saudi Arabia and Pakistan were far closer to Al Qaeda, and Iran was a much larger supporter of terrorists) than your "fact" that no one in the Bush administration lied.> That's not my fact. Please don't mischaracterize what I said.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Man, you've got your head buried in more sand than there is IN Iraq.> I disagree.
Originally Posted By Mr X >>>I am a supporter of President Bush, but I haven't agreed with every decision he has made, nor is he my favorite president. He's probably not even in the top five.<<< Douglas...can I hear who your top 5 might be?
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh Washington, of course, and Lincoln. Then I'd say Reagan, Madison, and Teddy Roosevelt. Last fall, I visited the homes of Truman and Eisenhower, and that gave me greater appreciation for them.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<Gadzuux's statement, that the Bush administration lied, is an opinion, not a black-and-white incorrect statement, particularly since he did say "administration" rather than just "Bush.">> <Gadzuux's statement was that they lied about some specific things - things which the Bush administration could not have lied about, because they were true - Saddam did have nuclear ambitions and he did support terrorism.> I can't speak for him, but perhaps he meant that they intentionally misled us about how serious or close to fruition his "ambitions" were, for example. Rice was going on TV scaring us with visions of mushroom clouds, after all. Same with the extent of his support for terrorism; what frightened Americans was terrorism coming here, which Saddam had nothing to do with, not so much that he gave money to Palestinians fighting Israel. But they conflated the two or blurred the lines about what Saddam was involved with and what he wasn't, and if gadzuux saw that as intentionally misleading, his statement is a valid opinion. <<My statement that Iraq was less tied to Al Qaeda and less supportive of terrorists than other countries in the region is at least as much "fact" with at least as much to back it up (Saudi Arabia and Pakistan were far closer to Al Qaeda, and Iran was a much larger supporter of terrorists) than your "fact" that no one in the Bush administration lied.>> <That's not my fact. Please don't mischaracterize what I said.> See above, and we should be on the same page. <<Man, you've got your head buried in more sand than there is IN Iraq.>> <I disagree.> Presses. Freaking. Stop. We'll just have to see if Iraq becomes free and prosperous any time in the Bush-influenced future.
Originally Posted By gadzuux My comments from post 23 state that the administration didn't speak of saddam's nuclear "ambitions", they portrayed it as an active program to enrich uranium. It wasn't true. They said they knew exactly where this material was. It wasn't true. They said that saddam actively sought yellow cake uranium from niger. It wasn't true. Some people may categorize that as "intentionally misleading". Why mince words? They're lies told by liars. The purpose of these factually incorrect statements was to dupe the american people into supporting a pre-emptive 'war of choice'. It wasn't just some mistake, it was a deliberate campaign of misinformation in support of the goal of invading iraq. And the reasons for the invasion were not what we were told - they weren't because saddam was a threat - he wasn't. They weren't because iraq had a nuclear program - they didn't. They weren't because saddam had close ties to al qaeda - he didn't. They weren't because of stockpiles of WMD - there weren't any. So why do people wince when these statements are called out as lies? There was never any evidence supporting the bush administration's contentions - if there was they would have produced it. Instead they got powell to stand in front of the UN and give an entire presentation of falsehoods - the only thing they had. Bush supporters cannot both support bush and acknowledge that he led our nation into war on lies. Yet (with the exception of douglas) they can't deny the facts at hand either. So what do they do? They point at clinton, and to them that makes sense. Why not just adjust your beliefs to coincide with reality? Bush lied - deal with it.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <My comments from post 23 state that the administration didn't speak of saddam's nuclear "ambitions", they portrayed it as an active program to enrich uranium.> I don't believe they did. <They said they knew exactly where this material was.> Don't think they did this either. <They said that saddam actively sought yellow cake uranium from niger. It wasn't true.> Yes, it was. <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2139609/" target="_blank">http://www.slate.com/id/213960 9/</a> <So why do people wince when these statements are called out as lies?> Because they aren't. Most of the things they accused Saddam of were true. The things that didn't still were not lies, because they believed them to be true, just as everyone else did, including the Clinton administration and the UN.
Originally Posted By DAR The author of the Slate article, Christopher Hitchens is a very interesting read. Iraq is the only thing he supports Bush on.
Originally Posted By onlyme Since the dawn of Israel, leaders have been calling for/predicting/threatening it's demise. But, interestingly, none have ever been succesful. Of course, Isreal has gone thru periods when it seemed they were headed for extinction, but they always seemed to bounce back. My point is that this is not the first person to call for their destruction and he won't be the last. Gee, I wonder why.
