Screaming Penguin

if whomever posted the earlier criticism wants to try again, go ahead but please try to have something to debate. dont just say i am a left wing moron (which may or may not be accurate but is irrelevant). facts, the prez and the administration lied. the lied on a magnitude that i dont think has ever happened before (not in my lifetime, not watergate, not blowjobgate, but wargate).

I am shocked at the lack of outrage by the citizens of the United States. Bush lied to us, united Nations and the world. He has potrayed us as a warmonging nation. The President shpuld be impeach for wrong doing. He owes an apology to the parents and families of the soldiers that died in Iragi. Bush is a spoiled rich boy who does not finish the jobs and responsibilities he has undertaken. We need to take care of our own people first and not try to be the worlds police force. I totally agreed with the Dixied Chicks remarks made in England earlier this year. Bush is the war criminal. Thank You Robert J. Gurzick Write your congressmen and women, expose bush for what he is.

Here is a quote from MSNBC where the CIA informed the White House 3 months prior to the state of the union speach that the data was false: [i]U.S. officials told NBC News’ Andrea Mitchell that Tenet himself advised Rice’s top deputy, Steven Hadley, to remove a reference to the uranium report from a speech Bush delivered Oct. 7 in Cincinnati, establishing that the nation’s top intelligence officials suspected that the allegation was false more than three months before they approved Bush’s repeating it in his nationally televised address on Jan. 28.[/i] Evidently it doesn't stop with lies and cover ups over Iraq, this policy extends into Bush's economic policy as well = [url=http://slate.msn.com/id/2085481]Slate[/url] He is making a mockery of our government - and why is Dean the only person speaking out on this? It baffles the mind...

Shmooze... I didnt see that one. Thats sucks that Rice's top deputy did not remove it.... realize this... the president is merely a puppet..been like that for many moons... Bush did not invent the position... he just fits in.

For me it's all about scale. Sending two thousand troops over to work with a majority of troups from nations closer to the affected country with international support is completely different than a unilateral occupation of a country without substantial international support. So - should we send troups into Liberia in a supporting position? My vote is yes. Should we send 200,000 troups in to overthrow the government when all the surrounding nations are opposed to that action? My vote then would be no...

speaking on behalf of shmooze, you didnt understand it at all.

Point out to me what I did not understand? Am I incorrect? Please back up your statement.

the fact that iraq is bad, the regime is bad, was/is true, but that has nothing to do with why we purported to invade. thats what has been missed. sure iraq is/was bad, the deal is the bush administration said it was an "imminent" threat to the united states, and thats total bullshit. it was a threat to its own citizens, it was a threat MAYBE to Israel (or others in the region), but it wasnt a threat to the US and NONE OF THE CRAP ANYONE IS SPOUTING ABOUT IRAQ JUSTIFIES INVASION. THE POLICY OF CONTAINMENT THAT WAS WORKING FOR THE TEN YEARS PRIOR WAS JUST THAT, WORKING. THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO REASON WE COULD NOT HAVE GIVEN THE UN INSPECTORS MORE TIME. Let me repeat that, NO _FUCKING_ REASON AT ALL BECAUSE ALL THE IMMINENT CRAP WAS BULLSHIT. Even "xunil" on this phorum says he agrees with you and that the point was taking out this horrible dictator and comparing it to Hitler/Nazi. Thats a totally invalid analogy and it simply points out how profoundly he misunderstands the arguments AGAINST THE WAR (before the war began, I dont think by any means we should leave now, we need to finish what we started completely). Come on people, they are many regimes around the world with horrible dictators that commit atrocities against their own citizens (lets just go off the top, Pakistan, Syria, Iran, Libya, Cuba, Nigeria, Sierra Leone, etc, etc, etc). Some of these countries are OUR SUPPOSED ALLIES. So its bullshit to use the "atrocities against his own people horrible dictator" crap. The point is arguing about what does justify the invasion AFTER the invasion is bullshit. BEFORE the invasion the US administration said the reasons to invade were to remove WMDs that the UN inspectors could not find because they were morons and we couldnt give them any more information OR TIME because of security purposes and they sprinkled in terrorism links whenever they could. NEITHER WMDs or TERRORISM LINKS HAVE ANY CREDIBLE PROOF. AND BEFORE YOU INVADE A COUNTRY ITS A GOOD IDEA TO HAVE SOLID JUSTIFICATION OF WHY YOU ARE DOING SO. Its hilarious to me now to see all the hawks backpedaling and changing the reasons we went to war. All of the people that supported the war beforehand are now saying "well we went to war to remove that terrible dictator" and such. Well, in fact, we purported to go to war because of the imminent threat posed by the regime with WMDs (including nuclear) and again, it just turns out that thats all bullshit. Some people recognized BEFOREHAND that the case for war was specious, some didnt. Those that didnt are now changing their stories, bottom line.

Damn. I was wrong. Didn't mention it in either post. I woulda happily bet a shiny new quarter that "UN sanctioned" woulda come up in there somewhere. There was a little nod, but no where near what I thought. The sarcasm was, probably obvious, now, reserved for the U.N.

I understand that this is not a discussion of the pros or cons of the U.N. Hell, I can agree that some good happens in the name of the U.N. and I'll leave it at that. I was just sure that the act of sanctioning the actions would have figured in your posts. I was wrong.

I don't always pick the anti-U.N. line. I just see problems inherent to the system, problems that are not just going to go away. And I am pretty sure that I've personally never uttered the "evil dictator" argument as justification for going into Iraq. I buy this just about as much as I buy the weapons inspectors doing any good whatsoever. I'll have to go and try to read up on my old posts, but I am pretty sure that I have not changed my stance on anything. Mainly because I've pretty much stopped talking about it. I'll admit that I instinctively question any actions and their motives of large scale movements by the U.N. I just don't see it as an effective body. I'd like to think that I am willing to change my mind, but I just don't see it happening. I'm not aware of a single military success of the U.N. (I'd guess that there are some, I just don't know of them. I just started paying attention to the world around me a few years ago.) As shmooze points out in his post, there were very distinct problems with the chain of comamnd in Somalia. I see this as being indicative of the U.N. Sure as a political system, you want to share the power and responsibility. When it comes to the military, however, one person is in charge. Period. I have to assume that it is done this way for a reason. A committee simply can not come to the decisions quick enough not get people killed unnecessarily. (not saying that an 'evil dictator' or even 'dumbass president' can't kill off the same amount of people needlessly.) Hell a committee can't decide whether or not they want to eat chinese or mexican at lunch. Anyway, at the end of the day, I just don't see how the political mishmash of the U.N. can ever effectively translate into a coherent military force capable of actually solving problems. From what (admittedly little) I've seen, the politics that take place in the General Assembly trickle down to the battlefield, and that's just inneffective.

1. us said need to invade iraq because WMDs and terrorism. - Actually, this was one of the many reasons. And although you and other nay-sayers won't admit it, there has been some evidence of WMD weapons programs that are in clear violation of UN santions. You know, missles, documents, buried trucks that would make perfect mobile bioweapons labs, etc. But true, the 'big smoking gun' hasn't really been found yet. 2. us said cant wait for the incompetent UN and cant give them even another month of time, its to "imminent" of a threat. And who is to say that it wasn't an iminent threat? Maybe, in fact, we were too late and the WMD's were transferred elsewhere. And hey - the UN had 12 years and 15 or so failed resolutions. Maybe it was time to act. 3. us lied about the threat, stated iraq had nuclear materials it never did have (on MORE than one occasion). -Whether this is a lie or not is still debateable. First off, in the state of the Union, Bush said that British Intelligence had proof yada yada yada. The CIA cleared this. Now, this could all be bullshit, granted. But, the Brits STILL insist that they have proof of Niger yellow cake uranium transactions. However, they are not free to release it - possibly because the Nigerian uranium mines are actually owned by a French company and perhaps the sources are French Intelligence. It is still early in the game to say that it was an outright lie. I believe there is ALOT of info that isn't being released to the public because they don't necessarily need to know. 4. us invades iraq. And millions of people are set free from a murderous dictator. Good for us!!!! My point was, so why now support sending troops to Liberia???

Actually, I think that Iraq is the direct results of lessons learned from Somalia, Desert Storm, etc. First, we learned that depending on the UN is bad. In Desert Storm we could have taken out Saddam but instead the UN said no (it was not Bush Sr's fault, like many people say). Second, in Somalia, we had a very limited action with only minor capabilities put in play, per UN agreements. This is why people got killed. So in Iraq, we don't wait for the UN to pussyfoot around the issue like they had done for 12 years, we form a 'coalition of the willing' and do what needs to be done, and we do it with overwhelming force. Remember when it was projected 1000's of US soldiers would die? Well, that didn't happen because we went in prepared. And since we don't have to listen to the UN in this deal we no longer have to worry about 3rd world countries - who don't have much to risk - voting us down and dictating how our soldiers should fight and die. Yes, the UN helps the smaller countries get a voice. But if they don't have the ability to back up the voice, then should they speak at all? Sorry, I'm a realist, not an idealist.

Oh, BTW, the President did happen to mention the genocide/humanitarian aspect in his state of the union address. It wasn't always just about the WMD's.

dude i guess we are never going to get our respective points across. we just fundamentally disagree, thats all, there is nothing else to say.

does anybody else thing this damn forum sucks ass, man this layout is ugly. i need to throw out this "phorum" stuff and write this entirely over myself because this is just bad.

It kind of works till you get a multi tree thread like this one - then it's like 'Dude..which one of these things have I read before?'

toss this ****! ;)