Can this guy get any dumber? As it turns out, yes.

[DukeLeto]

I realise that it is not Dubyas's fault what his father & Reagan did.  And actually, if you read my arguments carefully, I've never said I oppose removing Hussein from power.  But the war, and the justifications for it, I strongly oppose.  I'd probably be less outraged if the Bush administration could have just come out in the beginning and said: "Here's why we're invading Iraq:  I hate Saddam, he mistreats his people, and I want their oil.  Deal."  I wouldn't have supported that war either, but at least he wouldn't have been a lying weasel.

Removing Saddam from power by supporting the revolutionaries inside the country, or by attempting to get the UN on our side, might have been acceptable.  But military action, catastophic death tolls (both civilian and military), and lies to justify it all are unacceptable.

And why was Iraq a bigger threat to the US than, say, Saudi Arabia?  After all, number of 9/11 hijackers from SA: 15 of 19.  Number from Iraq: 0 of 19.  And certainly Saddam wasn't the most oppressive dictator in the world.  A short list of nations with more egregious human rights violations:  Libya, Sudan, N. Korea, Iran...and yes, Saudi Arabia again.

Also, to debunk some miths of Iraq:

"Iraq was a Muslim Fundamentalist nation!"

Nope, Iraq was actually a ver secular nation.  In Baghdad, there were many mosques, yes, but several Christian churches and even a Jewish Synaguage (I apologize in advance if I butchered that spelling).  And no, the burqua (sp?) was NOT mandatory for women.

"Iraq had ties to al Qaeda and/or were involved in 9/11."

Simply put, no.  Don't believe me?  Ask the 9/11 commission.  (Or, rather, read their report.)

"Iraq was a backwards nation!  (I know because I saw the pictures of the slums/bombed out ruins on Fox News!)"

No, actually, Iraq was a very advanced nation, with SUVs, CD players, DVDs, CD and DVD players in SUVs, etc.  You can find slums anywhere in America if you look hard enough, and guess who bombed out most of those buildings?

[EWS]

I see you watched Farenheit 9/11.

I was for the war all the way.  However, I don't think Bush/Blair lied.  I actually think they personally believed that Saddam had WMD there and were capable of doing it.

[DukeLeto]

However, I don't think Bush/Blair lied.  I actually think they personally believed that Saddam had WMD there and were capable of doing it.

That would be acceptable if it weren't for the fact that the CIA told Bush that the WMD and al-Qaeda information was flimsy at best.  But he went ahead and presented it as solid fact anyways.

[Wolf]

Al Qaeda is not the only terrorist group in the world, either. What of Ansar al-Islam? I understand that terror group is based in Iraq. And are not Saddam's methods easily described as terror? I agree with EWS, I do not think Bush nor Blair lied when they spoke of Iraq. They were wrong, but I think they believed what was being said. From what I remember of Bush before September 11th and afterwards, he went from being very moderate to very radical... Friends of mine from Texas remember him as being a generally good governor, and not as radical as he is now. Back then, the "big issue" with Governor Bush was educational reform, not war. I do not think it is fair to say that this man is a war-monger... yet. As I have said before, we cannot simply make blanket statements of this play and its characters until its entire course has been run. We may yet still find WMDs, we may yet discover war profiteering. All is possible.

I will say, however, that the human rights issue alone would have been enough to justify some sort of regime change in Iraq -- but I am still unsure if war was the best answer. I can understand that sanctions and assassination are ineffective, and in other ways are just as unacceptable (do not sanctions cause civilian casualties, is not assassination still murder?). The argument that Saddam did not support al Qaeda doesn't suit me, as Saddam supported other terror groups. The argument that Saudi Arabia is a greater threat also doesn't suit me -- did you remember that bombing that killed over a hundred Saudi Arabians earlier this year? It was carried out by al Qaeda. Al Qaeda despises its motherland for siding with the West. In my opinion, North Korea was the greater threat, but I do not know the whole story there. Their dictator seems just as bad, their arsenal is real. I can only assume that the only reason we never assaulted the DPRK was because China promised us that they would fix the problem, and we could not risk what they would not tolerate -- a war on their de jure ally.

[ordos45]

Then Tenet flopped around and told him it was a 'slam dunk'.

[Wolf]

Yeah, about Tenet. I think Bush & Blair's intelligence people told them that their data was balls-on accurate. I don't think the CIA or the FBI were really sure about what they had, but I think they wanted to please a new administration. Or I don't-know-what. This situation was an intelligence failure, not an administration failure. We need to overhaul FBI and CIA, because I think they're still in Cold War-mode, you know, where everyone has the bomb.

[GUNWOUNDS]

Why did Bush go after Iraq instead of N. Korea?

Probably because N. Korea already has nukes.. and Bush knew that time was the only factor keeping saddam from having nukes.

So time is not on our side... and diplomacy requires lots of TIME.... hell Iraq has been violating UN sanctions for what?.. 12 years?

[nemafakei]

Um, corrupt is a fairly strong word, and while I can accept in general terms it might be the case for Russia (though in this instance, I'm not really sure if they'd be so motivated), France's corruption level, as far as I recall from most of the statistics I've read, is a little lower than the UK, and significantly lower than the US. I can see why it might be in their interests to be corrupt, but that doesn't say they were... there are much more reasonable ways of explaining French and Russian opposition to war (and German and British (public's) and Spanish (public's), etc).

[Edric O]

What is "right-wing" and conservative about either women's rights or Darwin?  WTF is conservative about Darwin?

First of all, I was talking about social darwinism (look it up - it essentially amounts to the sickening idea that the poor are "subhuman" and should not be allowed to reproduce). And, in fact, calling it "right-wing" is a massive understatement, seeing how social darwinism was a key policy of many fascist regimes.

Second of all, just so you know, Charles Darwin himself was a typical victorian conservative. He didn't have anything to do with the idea of social darwinism, though. The people who invented social darwinism just borrowed Darwin's name.

[ken124578]

Perhaps you guys should make new topics about these subjects... this thread has gone very offtopic.