Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Who else do we need to beat?> That would be Al Queda. They've poured much of their resources in Iraq, trying to beat us there, because they know a free and prosperous Iraq would be a serious blow to their cause. Someone so ill-informed probably shouldn't comment on "idiocy".
Originally Posted By ecdc Fortunately, most people today can see that Douglas's version of Iraq is pure fantasy, an untenable vision that doesn't conform to the facts to bolster an ideology. And the ideology and the support of Bush at all costs absolutely trumps the lives of the Americans and Iraqis who have died. It's sad, but true. We know that Saddam was not a threat to us and that there was no other 9/11 waiting in the wings. We know that Al Qaeda is only in Iraq fighting our soldiers because that's where we sent them. If we'd kept the bulk of our army in Afghanistan (hey, you guys remember the folks that attacked us, right? I sure do - it wasn't Saddam Hussein) then we'd be fighting Al Qaeda there instead. Sorry, these are wasted lives. This was an entirely unnecessary war, and only those out of touch with reality would say we're somehow safer because of it.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>That would be Al Queda. They've poured much of their resources in Iraq, trying to beat us there, because they know a free and prosperous Iraq would be a serious blow to their cause.<< This is, of course, pure conjecture and absurd on its face. They're in Iraq because that's where we are. It has nothing to do with a "free and prosperous Iraq" (something that probably was possible and Bush's incompetence lost for us) and everything to do with killing Americans. They're closer to where Al Qaeda is in Iraq, so that's where they went. Bush lost the war, Douglas. Not the Democrats, not those who now want to pull out. Bush and his administration lost it through poor decisions (like disbanding the Iraqi army) and sheer incompetence. That's the reality.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder >That would be Al Queda. They've poured much of their resources in Iraq, trying to beat us there, because they know a free and prosperous Iraq would be a serious blow to their cause. Someone so ill-informed probably shouldn't comment on "idiocy". < Right back at ya. Who created the opportunity to let them in there? Bush did. Which Administration is guilty of criminal negligence for such faulty war planning? The current one. Who is guilty of abetting murder? Anyone who still supports and advocates for this bloody war
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh You can continue to claim your opinions are "reality", but they are not.
Originally Posted By DAR I have no doing a major overhaul in Iraq with our forces. But if the next attack on these shores comes generates from Iraq, then the people who wanted us to leave have no right to complain or say the government didn't do enough.
Originally Posted By jonvn If the next attack comes from Iraq, it would be our own doing. Iraq was no threat to us at all until we bothered to invade it.
Originally Posted By ecdc It's not an "opinion" that Saddam posed no threat, that would be one of those pesky fact things. What's an opinion (and a very weak one at that) is that we're safer because of the invasion.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <It's not an "opinion" that Saddam posed no threat, that would be one of those pesky fact things.> No, it's an opinion. And it's certainly not what was believed by most people prior to our invasion, for good reason. "The terrorist threat against America is all too clear. Thousands of terrorist operatives around the world would pay anything to get their hands on Saddam's arsenal, and there is every reason to believe that Saddam would turn his weapons over to these terrorists. No one can doubt that if the terrorists of September 11 had had weapons of mass destruction, they would have used them. On September 12, 2002, we can hardly ignore the terrorist threat and the serious danger that Saddam would allow his arsenal to be used in aid of terror." John Edwards
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh And Sen Edwards wasn't mislead, as he admitted himself on Hardball with Chris Matthews on October 13, 2003: "And as you know, I serve on the Senate Intelligence Committee. So it wasn't just the Bush administration. I sat in meeting after meeting after meeting where we were told about the presence of weapons of mass destruction. There is clearly a disconnect between what we were told and what, in fact, we found there." Was Saddam more of a threat than North Korea or Iran? Senator Edwards thought so. On February 24, 2002, when he was asked about President Bush's use of the term "axis of evil", he said the following: "I think Iraq is the most serious and imminent threat to our country".
Originally Posted By ecdc Of course, Senator Edwards has now done what most people are too cowardly to do, including Hillary Clinton and George W. Bush and admitted he was wrong. It's not an opinion anymore than 2+2=4 is an opinion, and we got it wrong. The fault today lies with those few remaining delusional fools who insist we'll be safer by continuing to create more terrorists in Iraq and spreading the lie that Saddam was a threat when we now know he wasn't.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Of course, Senator Edwards has now done what most people are too cowardly to do, including Hillary Clinton and George W. Bush and admitted he was wrong.> Hindsight is 20/20. <The fault today lies with those few remaining delusional fools who insist we'll be safer by continuing to create more terrorists in Iraq and spreading the lie that Saddam was a threat when we now know he wasn't.> That's your opinion. Mine is that the fools who insist we are creating more terrorists in Iraq, that we can't win there, or that Saddam was no threat are delusional.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>Hindsight is 20/20.<< Not for many in this administration, nor it's fans, sadly. They continue to believe in fantasyland concepts like Iraq becoming a model democracy that will inspire other countries in the region to emulate their success. The same old garbage they promised back in 2002, back when we were told we'd be greeted as liberators, with flowers and chocolate. But you go ahead and believe it if you wish. Just brace yourself for the fact that it isn't ever going to turn out that way. The neocons blew it.
Originally Posted By DAR <<that Saddam was a threat when we now know he wasn't>> Well I trusted Hussein as much as I trust the neighborhood pederast hanging out at the local playground.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <They continue to believe in fantasyland concepts like Iraq becoming a model democracy that will inspire other countries in the region to emulate their success.> No one is claiming that Iraq will become a model democracy. <The same old garbage they promised back in 2002, back when we were told we'd be greeted as liberators, with flowers and chocolate.> No one promised we'd be greeted as liberators, with flowers and chocolate. <Just brace yourself for the fact that it isn't ever going to turn out that way.> Maybe not, but it might turn out the way some have predicted, as long as we don't listen to the modern day Copperheads.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "You can continue to claim your opinions are "reality", but they are not." Again, right back at ya. I can't wait for the criminal trials around 2009, 2010. This Administration is toast.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Again, right back at ya.> I'm not claiming that my opinions are reality. <I can't wait for the criminal trials around 2009, 2010. This Administration is toast.> I doubt that.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "Maybe not, but it might turn out the way some have predicted, as long as we don't listen to the modern day Copperheads." Ah yes, the new talking point. Paint the anti-war folk as traitors to the cause. Utter bull, just utter bull.
