Informal, unscientific poll....

[hetron]

In a previous thread, I had gotten into an argument with a poster or two over whether or not the Bush administration had gotten involved with Iraq on the basis of only flimsy evidence of WMD's. As one poster stated it;

[ QUOTE ]

...I guess what you're saying is that George Bush didn't care whether there were WMD stockpiles in Iraq or not, was going to push to invade the country to satisfy his agenda, then deal with the possibility that they didn't exist if that's the way it turned out. Doubt if that is remotely close to reality.


[/ QUOTE ]

The poster also stated that believing in such a fantastic idea was something that only those on the leftist political fringe actually believed.

I just want to conduct a little informal, unscientific 2+2 poll regarding this issue. How many people here believe that the Bush administration in some way skewed, altered or embellished the truth about the intel available on Iraqi WMD's and/or the Iraqi government's connection to Al Qaeda in order to justify the war against Iraq and the insane Hussein? Just a simple yes or no response will be fine. You don't have to put your reasons for thinking so (though obviously you can if you want).

Again, no real reason for doing this, just curious what people on here think.

I guess I'll go first.

Answer: Yes

Reason: The fact that no credible evidence that the massive WMD was assembled or being assembled has come out either before or after the invasion took place, leads me to believe that Bush and Co. had an agenda to fulfill in Iraq. The Paul O'Neill book stating that the neo cons in the cabient had this agenda going into the White House pretty much seals it for me. O'Neill might be sore as hell for being fired, but I don't think he would go as far as make up fairy tales in order to get back at the administration.

[Chris Alger]

It isn't even arguable. Among other reasons, the mere fact that Bush falsey characterized UNSCOM's conclusions and can't identify the "intelligence" he used to support his statements shows that he deliberately tried to mislead the public.

What you're dealing here is something that anthropoligists recognize as taboo. Many Americans cannot accept evidence that the President and national leadship are capable of actual evil, no matter who they kill or why. They simply refuse to entertain the possibility.

[bigpooch]

Yes, as soon as Bush Sr. was involved, it was inevitable
regardless of any evidence. Does anyone know whether it was
true that Iraq had Russian intelligence that the British
were already planning to invade Iraq about a year in
advance?

And the hubris of Saddam Hussein: why tangle up with a real
heavyweight like Bush Sr.?

[MMMMMM]

You should change the question from "in some way" to "quite significantly" (re: skewed, altered or embellished). Reason: a little skewing is fairly common, politically speaking--and is vastly different than large-scale alteration or major embellishment.

[MMMMMM]

Pretty bizarre if you consider it to be evil to have removed a regime which actually was evil.

[Al_Capone_Junior]

al

[hetron]

[hetron]

I meant "significantly". Your point is duly noted.

[MMMMMM]

^

[Utah]

. Many Americans cannot accept evidence that the President and national leadship are capable of actual evil

And you cannot accept any evidence that the President and National Leadership are not evil. Just curious, how do you think the national leadership staged that whole phony 9/11 thing? That was a hell of a bambozzle don't you think.

[Utah]

I would guess Yes. However, as I have stated many times that the government had many valid reasons for going to war that were simply too complex for the common person to understand. It reminds me of my govenment class in High School when the teacher asked, "who was the press secretary with Reagan when he was shot?". 6 girls immediately said with shock - "Reagan was shot!!?".

Also, you are twisting the argument to make the reader take as given that the reason for going to war was the WMD issue. The strongest argument however was that Saddam did not live up to the resolutions. He had several chances to stop the war.

Also, lets not forget that the Bush did not pull the WMD issue out of thin air as the Clinton adminstration thought the same thing. I am curious if Alger and the gang think that Clinton is evil for Desert Fox, since it is supposedly now clear that Clinton bombed for no just reason. Funny, but I simply do remember at the time any liberals attacking Clinton. Why are they so silent now?

[CCass]

IMO, it depends on what you mean by "the Bush Administration". I don't think the President knowingly lied about WMD. I do believe it is possible that someone working under the President "tweaked" the intel available to give the President the information he wanted to hear. Lots of people want to please their boss.

[andyfox]

"the government had many valid reasons for going to war that were simply too complex for the common person to understand."

The government had no complex reasons for going to war. The government likes to make you think that they have access to secret information and intricate complexities that makes their decision-making much tougher than the average person can know and, therefore, the average person should defer to their better judgment.

Bull.

High-schoolers may not know that Reagan was shot, but I'd be willing to bet that Bush and Cheney know less about history than you and I.

The United States did not give one damn about the U.N. resolutions. The U.N. did not favor going to war over Hussein's non-compliance. The U.N. resolutions were the convenient justification.

Of course liberals don't criticize Clinton, just as conservatives don't criticize Bush. The Democrats voted en masse 100% against impeachment. He was their guy and they were sticking with him, period. He's the only guy they've been able to elect since Vietnam (except for Jimmy Carter who got in only by accident [Watergate]).

BTW, it was during Clinton's second term that the Pentagon began to plan for renewing war with Iraq. The JCS's Strategic Assessment 1999 said that an "oil war" in the Persian Gulf was a serious contingency and that "U.S. forces might be used to ensure adequate supplies." There was a basic continuity of policy from Clinton to Bush. The only difference has been 9/11. Rumsfeld requested an immediate assault on Iraq hours after the 9/11 attacks and insisted that Iraq should be "a principal target of the first round in the war against terrorism."

The Project for the New American Century wrote Clinton on January 26, 1998 calling for "the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime from power." Ten of the eighteen signers became members of the Bush administration (including Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz).

Hussein had no chance to stop the war. Once 9/11 occurred he was toast.

[MMMMMM]

"Hussein had no chance to stop the war. Once 9/11 occurred he was toast."

Better late than never. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Utah]

Hi Andy,

The government had no complex reasons for going to war

Those complexities existed in reality. Whether Bush or the gang took into account these complexities is more of an open question I guess. However, I would certainly bet heavily that game theory analysis, monte Carlo type simulations, etc. did take place. Many of the complex analysis tools grew out of government projects and it stetches believability that higher ups were unaware of this analysis. Secondly, the analysis does not need to be overly complex to trip up the public. All on needs to do is throw in a few probabilities, contingencies, and possible scenarios and the public is toast.

The United States did not give one damn about the U.N. resolutions. The U.N. did not favor going to war over Hussein's non-compliance. The U.N. resolutions were the convenient justification.

I pretty much agree and have stated many times that the real justifications were hidden. I think the U.N. is a pretty worthless institution, other than merely providing a forum for international discussion. However, it must be noted that B.S. or not, the Bush Administration used the U.N. as a context for war. This has been mainly left out of the WMD discussions.

Of course liberals don't criticize Clinton, just as conservatives don't criticize Bush

I couldn't agree more. As I have said many times in the past that I am not a big G.W. fan. I consider my agruments more along the lines of - "The case against the case against going to war".

Hussein had no chance to stop the war. Once 9/11 occurred he was toast

Here I disagree. I think that if Saddam had complied fully then the pressure to stop the war would be too great. I simply believe he didn't believe that the U.S. had the guts to do it.

Hence, I have stated many times that the threat of force is the greatest weapon against using force. As game theory tells us, the "reckless" aggressor has the advantage.

Example: You and I are going to play chicken. There are three possible outcomes: you chicken, I chicken, or splat! The first two outcomes you can live with. Splat! is the only disaster. You see me getting into my car, downing a bottle of Jack Daniels, and putting on a blindfold. Do you chicken? This scenario plays on the global stage as well.

note: I am paraphrasing a section of Prisioners Dilemma by Poundstone

[bigpooch]

If the actual TRUTH were known about 9/11, the average
American would simply disbelieve it. Most humans on the
planet are "sheeople" and with the risk of offending almost
everyone on the planet, don't even realize how evil the
world really is! How does a passport survive while the
recordings of black box recorders are left unrevealed?

Isn't hilarious that the media spins stories to get the
American public to think in a certain way? Are the media
so easily manipulated or controlled or are sheeople so
stupid? Although I don't discount the remote possibility
that the engineers of what happenened on 9/11 were Americans
it is probably more likely that Saudis funded an operation,
American intelligence were aware of it, and the proper
execution of the operation was allowed to completion. Most
likely, this provided the necessary stage to use military
force in Afghanistan and Iraq and most probably was because
George Sr. or the power brokers just wanted to get rid of
Saddam Hussein (btw, aren't some of the power brokers in
Saudi Arabia?).

[CCass]

Would you care to enlighten me? What is the "actual TRUTH about 9/11"? What do you KNOW that the sheeople do not?

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
Most humans on the planet are "sheeople" and with the risk of offending almost everyone on the planet, don't even realize how evil the world really is!

[/ QUOTE ]

Will higher taxes and bigger government fix this problem /images/graemlins/smile.gif?

[bigpooch]

I don't know what I know that the typical person doesn't
know, but I do know that I can think for myself. It doesn't
matter if you have the right building blocks but can't build
very much! You can get some of the pieces at:

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline/index.html

and you can draw any conclusions and form any opinions on
your own. Don't let anyone sway your own analysis!

Also, if you want to be thorough, check out the sources and
think and rethink what really did happen. Discuss it with
some really smart people that are open minded and keep an
open mind but reject what couldn't be possible. Put your
mind into the minds of the participants, how they view the
world, what makes them tick (and what ticks them off!) and
how they will likely act and react. Talk some more, listen
to what people think happened and why they think so. Be as
objective as humanly possible!

After you have done all that, you may get closer to the
truth and IMHO, I am still very far from the TRUTH (the
more one knows, the less one knows) but I am convinced of
this:

The continued occupation of American forces in Saudi Arabia
years after the Gulf War, led Osama bin Laden (et al) to a
jihad against America.

Maybe if the first Bush Administration were better at
understanding the various views of the Saudi people and the
possible ramifications, they would not have continued to
leave any troops behind. They thought some fringe groups
were bluffing and called them but were shown the stone cold
nuts! Still, the American foreign policy could have been
based on what Bush Sr. thought (at that time) was the best
informed decision and unfortunately, didn't think history
would unravel as it did.

Also, when I look at the information, something really
stinks to high heaven! Thankfully, I believe in that in
the end, real justice will be meted out, so I don't really
get too stressed out about this! But it seems there were so
many things that the cognoscente want to hide, and my gut
feeling is that some of these things, if known to the
American people, are so utterly despicable, not many common
folk would believe it because they wouldn't want to believe
it!

[MMMMMM]

"The continued occupation of American forces in Saudi Arabia
years after the Gulf War, led Osama bin Laden (et al) to a
jihad against America."

This is hogwash, that's merely the excuse bin-Laden seized upon to justify his madness.

Only 5000 American troops were squirreled away quietly in a remote corner of Saudi Arabia, at the behest of the Saudi government, doing no harm to anyone, and even doing their best to respect the customs of the Saudis. American troops saved Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia by extension, from Saddam's bloody steamroller. So...exactly what was bin-Laden's beef? That they were defiling the sacred land, right?! LOL, Osama, you are an IDIOT--go back to the 9th century you retarded turd, you evil spirit spawned of the foulest pits of Acheron--or else wait 'til you get blown to hell, you deluded m0&$(&^%#$%^r. Of all the STUPIDEST excuses, this has to be tops.

When Osama meets Allah it will not be a merry meeting.

[bigpooch]

I know it's utterly amazing and ridiculous to the Western
mind, and although I don't want to get inside Osama bin
Laden's mind, either 1) this is what he truly believed, or
2) something about Americans really pissed him off when he
was fighting the Russians in Afghanishtan.

Also, Osama bin Laden could also have been the pigeon or
front man for some anti-American Islamic groups and this
was the party line. I have not looked very intently on the
mind of some extremist Muslims, but some of them do really
think in that way (if I am not mistaken)! A friend of mine
mentioned that some Saudi extremists would think nothing of
killing Americans because American troops were "corrupting"
the Saudi women!

[ChipWrecked]

Thanks Al; I'm the only voter for yes/no: Sure, they probably doctored or spun evidence. I don't care whether there are WSD's or not. We need to wade around kicking asses until the Muslims themselves force a stop to the extremist's activities.

Want to stop suicide bombings in Israel? How about this:

For every Israeli killed in a bomb attack, 100 Palestinians will die. Just try us and find out if we're bluffing.

It might cut down on Israel's supply of cheap labor for a while, but you wouldn't see many more buses or pizza joints explode either.

[MMMMMM]

It should be utterly amazing to almost any mind, not just"the Western mind"--this is the 21st century, for God's sake!

As for Saudi extremists eager to kill Westerners for their "corrupting influences"--the whole damn region of the Middle East needs re-education in the most positive sense. The level of true ignorance over there is appalling.

[andyfox]

I suppose anything can be stopped if you make the punishment severe enough.

Then again, we did probably kill 100 Vietnamese for every one American killed and that didn't work. More Palestinians already die than Israelis in the violence.

Wading around kicking asses usually creates more terrorists than it eliminates.

[Al_Capone_Junior]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm the only voter for yes/no: Sure, they probably doctored or spun evidence. I don't care whether there are WSD's or not. We need to wade around kicking asses until the Muslims themselves force a stop to the extremist's activities.


[/ QUOTE ]

I was OK with this part.

[ QUOTE ]
Want to stop suicide bombings in Israel? How about this:

For every Israeli killed in a bomb attack, 100 Palestinians will die. Just try us and find out if we're bluffing.

It might cut down on Israel's supply of cheap labor for a while, but you wouldn't see many more buses or pizza joints explode either.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's this part where you lost me. So you want the USA to kill palestinians to support israel?

I certainly do NOT support the US supporting EITHER FRIGGIN SIDE. The israelis cause as many problems for themselves (and us by default) as they claim to try and solve. I could not care less if the US supports israel at all.

I have clearly stated in the past give the damn palestinians their friggin land so they'll shut the hell up. Of course we all know they won't anyway, no matter how good a deal they get, but that's a different story. You could give them all of friggin persia and send the jews to antarctica, and they'd still hate the jews and vow to kill them anyway, even if they had to take a rowboat to antarctica.

Of course after all the jews have done for the palestinians, who can blame them. And of course after all the palestinians have done for the jews, who can blame them either. Thus the vicious cycle continues ad infinitum till we're all fukking dead, which is what it will take to please everyone in that disaster of a mess of a worthless desert of a land.

al

[CCass]

Two things have been mentioned in this thread that I believe very strongly.

1. The Saudi's are not our friends! Many of the problems with extremist groups in the Middle East can be traced to the Saudi's. They (the Saudi's) play both sides of the fence well.

2. We (the USA) need to stay out of the Isreal/Palestine conflict. We can't fix a 2,000 year old conflict, especially when at least one (and maybe both) sides of the conflict don't want it to be fixed.

IMO, neither the Democrats, nor the Republicans have handled either of these issues well.

[MMMMMM]

"Wading around kicking asses usually creates more terrorists than it eliminates."

Well so far it seems to be eliminating terrorists somewhat overall, and Libya just turned state's evidence and vows to work for good and for disarmament. More conciliatory noises have been emanating from North Korea, and Syria is not quite as bellicose as before. Even the mad mullahs in Iran have agreed to nuclear inspections.

So if we were just kicking asses indicriminately, I'd say you'd be right. But our targeted ass-kicking thus far seems to be having some desired effects. Another 5 years or so and I'd say things will be well on their way to reshaping in the image of the 21st century and progress and liberty, rather than the Dark Ages.

And as I said before, terrorists aren't hydras;-)

Your view is also thoroughly defeatist, because if we do NOTHING the loony tunes will still hate and attack us. So better to kick their butts, prevent them from acquiring nuclear weapons, and work towards reforming the backward ways that got them into that place to begin with.

Sometimes andy right is simply right and backwardness is just, well, backwards.

I say we should kill all the terrorist training camps in the Middle East in one fell swoop--say a couple months from today. Totally flatten those training camps and militant headquarters with Daisy Cutters and see if your theory holds true. Bet it would take at least a decade to have that many terrorists again, and that would only be if we did nothing in the meantime.

[WillMagic]

Just to put things in perspective...

FDR was a major proponent of intervention in Germany (duh,) so much so that he told the American people that there was a serious threat that Germany would invade us, that we were on their "list." Of course, with a basic knowledge of geography, one would realize that invading the U.S. would have been impossible. But this Democratic President knew that our best interests lay with Britain winning the war.

So what is the price of stability? What is the price of knowing that Saddam Hussein will no longer be in control of a country? That he will not be able to pursue nukes?

This may sound callous, but it's worth a few thousand lives and an exaggeration or two from the president.

Just a few thoughts.

Will

[Utah]

It always reassures me that I am being fed unbiased into when there is a link on the homepage to U.S. human rights abuses.

Anyway, this made me laugh hysterically. On the site, here are some of the alleged U.S. torture methods:

1) Prisioners were subject to torture techniques such as feigned friendship, respect, and cultural sensitivity
2) Prisioners were interrogated by women (oh my god! Are you saying the U.S. wasn't sympathetic to the sexism of the captured? Oh, the Humanity!)
3) Prisioners were subject to flashing lights ans loud noises
4) prisoners were forced to stand or kneel for hours
5) prisoners were kept in metal shipping containers
6) Some prisoners held in Afghanistan were not permitted to speak with one another – at all
7) Prisioners weren't served milk and cookies promptly at 8:00 each night

Most of the rest of the list is pretty funny as well.

Dang, them U.S. interrogation boys are really going mediaeval! You know the gloves are off when the interrogators are not respecting cultural sensativities. It is only a matter of time down this slippery slope before the interrogators take away the prisioners down pillows.

[ChipWrecked]

No, I don't think we should be involved in the Israeli/Pali thing. Sorry I wasn't clear, I just used that as an example of how only force is respected in this part of the world. So when I say 'us', I'm putting myself in the place of the Israeli gov't. I sure as hell don't think the U.S. should hamstring them from taking care of business however they want. It would be a much more efficient use of the billions we give them.

It's my understanding that colonial England and France are the ones who screwed this all up with their border assignments after WW1 in the first place. That under the Ottomans, the cities had their 'quarters' (Jewish, Muslim, Christian, Coptic) and everybody got along relatively well. The whole area ought to be redrawn with the nationalities getting their nations. How about some love for the Kurds? Let's carve some of Turkey, Iraq and Iran into Kurdistan, why not?


I used to sympathize with the Palestinians. Why should they lose their country, just so the Jews could have one?

But they lost me on 9/11. When I saw them party in the streets, I got kinda sour. Now I think they need killin'. Give them the express ticket to Paradise.

Let's make the Islamists fear the U.S., if they're going to hate us anyway. Make them think twice before they pull any more of this cowardly crap on us.

But hey, this is a forum, and I don't mind being flamed, I wouldn't speak if I did. Just to show that I'm not a zealot or don't have a sense of humor, here's a link (http://www.hauntedmansion.info/bushin41point2.htm) that you anti-Bushies will love, and Bushies should get a chuckle out of, unless yer panties are bunched too tightly. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[clovenhoof]

I think it's beyond rational debate. For me, the truly interesting question is, did Bush have any other (or at least, any bigger) motivation for running for president than to invade Iraq once getting into power?

'hoof

[Al_Capone_Junior]

Whew! Ok i feel better now that you clarified!

[ QUOTE ]
How about some love for the Kurds? Let's carve some of Turkey, Iraq and Iran into Kurdistan, why not?


[/ QUOTE ]

Sure thing. Fine with me.

[ QUOTE ]
I used to sympathize with the Palestinians. Why should they lose their country, just so the Jews could have one?

But they lost me on 9/11. When I saw them party in the streets, I got kinda sour.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yea anyone who partied after we got bombed can kiss my liberal caucasion white ass.

Islam, or at the the radicals who often are the bosses, seem to want war with the US. They won't like it if they get it tho. [i highly doubt the AVERAGE islamist wants that war tho]

al