Runsfeld Clears Things Up
 

"The Iraqi security forces are out engaged in the fight. Some are in the lead, some are working with us in tandem, others are working with us where we have the lead, and that's perfectly understandable," Rumsfeld said on ABC's "This Week."

Yet, as recently as September, Gen. George Casey, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, told senators that only one Iraqi army battalion out of ninety-six appeared capable of fighting without U.S. help. Perfectly understandable.

"We have to all have the willingness to have a free debate, but we also all have to have the willingness to understand what the effects of our words are," Rumsfeld said.

A lecture by Don Rumsfeld about the importance of what effect words have. Just when one thinks nothing this administration does or says could top what happened the day before, it yields this.

I guess stuff happens.

Re: Runsfeld Clears Things Up
 

[ QUOTE ]
Rumsfeld said on ABC's "This Week."


[/ QUOTE ]

You should be watching football games instead of silly news programs.

Rumsfeld should garner a few 'Newspeak' awards I would think.



[ QUOTE ]
Just when one thinks nothing this administration does or says could top what happened the day before, it yields this.


[/ QUOTE ]


And today this: [ QUOTE ]

Bush Lowers Temperature of Iraq War Debate


By TERENCE HUNT, AP White House Correspondent
2 hours ago



BEIJING - After fiercely defending his Iraq policy across Asia, President Bush abruptly toned down his attack on war critics Sunday and said there was nothing unpatriotic about opposing his strategy.



[/ QUOTE ]


How sweet it is.

-Zeno

Re: Runsfeld Clears Things Up
 

If we're going to have anything that resembles a debate about the war in Iraq, let's start at the beginning......

Did we, or did we not, launch an unprovoked attack on a sovereign country?

Re: Runsfeld Clears Things Up
 

[ QUOTE ]
If we're going to have anything that resembles a debate about the war in Iraq, let's start at the beginning......

Did we, or did we not, launch an unprovoked attack on a sovereign country?


[/ QUOTE ]

Whether or not it was justifiable may be debated, but it was far from "unprovoked".

Re: Runsfeld Clears Things Up
 

[ QUOTE ]
Did we, or did we not, launch an unprovoked attack on a sovereign dictator?

[/ QUOTE ]

FYP

Re: Runsfeld Clears Things Up
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If we're going to have anything that resembles a debate about the war in Iraq, let's start at the beginning......

Did we, or did we not, launch an unprovoked attack on a sovereign country?


[/ QUOTE ]

Whether or not it was justifiable may be debated, but it was far from "unprovoked".

[/ QUOTE ]

OK.......Let's get a bit more specific:

Let's define & discuss what the provocation(s) were.

I'm guessing that the word 'justifiable' will rear it's head somewhere in this discussion.........

Re: Runsfeld Clears Things Up
 

Quickly, to list a few provocations:

-firing daily on US planes in no-fly zones

-many years of defying/obstructing/delaying U.N. resolutions and inspections

-purportedly having attempted to have Bush #1 assassinated

-encouraging and helping fuel the cottage industry of Palestinian suicide-bombing with 50K payments to families of suicide-bombers

Re: Runsfeld Clears Things Up
 

[ QUOTE ]
Quickly, to list a few provocations:

-firing daily on US planes in no-fly zones

-many years of defying/obstructing/delaying U.N. resolutions and inspections

-purportedly having attempted to have Bush #1 assassinated

-encouraging and helping fuel the cottage industry of Palestinian suicide-bombing with 50K payments to families of suicide-bombers

[/ QUOTE ]

OK....Please explain how any of the above merits a full-scale military invasion of Iraq?

Re: Runsfeld Clears Things Up
 

Like M said you can debate the merits but you can't really say that this does not add up to provocation.

Re: Runsfeld Clears Things Up
 

[ QUOTE ]
Like M said you can debate the merits but you can't really say that this does not add up to provocation.

[/ QUOTE ]

No insult intended......that seems like a very naive point of view.

Re: Runsfeld Clears Things Up
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Like M said you can debate the merits but you can't really say that this does not add up to provocation.



[/ QUOTE ]

No insult intended......that seems like a very naive point of view.

[/ QUOTE ]

Now I'm really puzzled. Naive...how?

And do you think Iraq did not act provocatively over many years?

Re: Runsfeld Clears Things Up
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Like M said you can debate the merits but you can't really say that this does not add up to provocation.



[/ QUOTE ]

No insult intended......that seems like a very naive point of view.

[/ QUOTE ]

Now I'm really puzzled. Naive...how?

And do you think Iraq did not act provocatively over many years?

[/ QUOTE ]

OK M.....We could get into a debate as to whether those actions you listed were 'provocative' or not, but that's not the issue.

The more important question is....Were these actions reasonable cause for a full scale military invasion of Iraq?

Re: Runsfeld Clears Things Up
 

[ QUOTE ]
many years of defying/obstructing/delaying U.N. resolutions and inspections

[/ QUOTE ]

M, please, not the UN. We really don't care about UN resolutions, do we?

Re: Runsfeld Clears Things Up
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
many years of defying/obstructing/delaying U.N. resolutions and inspections



[/ QUOTE ]

M, please, not the UN. We really don't care about UN resolutions, do we?


[/ QUOTE ]

Good point, John, haha;-) However, seeing as the U.N. resolutions regarding Iraq were in large part aligned with our own wishes, as well as with the terms of the cease-fire agreement, I think we do (and should) care.

Re: Runsfeld Clears Things Up
 

[ QUOTE ]

OK M.....We could get into a debate as to whether those actions you listed were 'provocative' or not, but that's not the issue.

The more important question is....Were these actions reasonable cause for a full scale military invasion of Iraq?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I think so...though of course there were additional reasons as well, and some of them even more compelling.

Re: Runsfeld Clears Things Up
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
many years of defying/obstructing/delaying U.N. resolutions and inspections



[/ QUOTE ]

M, please, not the UN. We really don't care about UN resolutions, do we?


[/ QUOTE ]

Good point, John, haha;-) However, seeing as the U.N. resolutions regarding Iraq were in large part aligned with our own wishes, as well as with the terms of the cease-fire agreement, I think we do (and should) care.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmmm.....quite a self-interested POV at the least.

Let me paraphrase.....We agree with the UN and therefore take it upon our own shoulders to unilaterally take whatever action we deem fit (with or without UN sanction), unless we disagree with the UN, and then we again reserve the right to do the same.

Let's get back to the original issue.......

Re: Runsfeld Clears Things Up
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Good point, John, haha;-) However, seeing as the U.N. resolutions regarding Iraq were in large part aligned with our own wishes, as well as with the terms of the cease-fire agreement, I think we do (and should) care.



[/ QUOTE ]

Hmmm.....quite a self-interested POV at the least.

Let me paraphrase.....We agree with the UN and therefore take it upon our own shoulders to unilaterally take whatever action we deem fit (with or without UN sanction), unless we disagree with the UN, and then we again reserve the right to do the same.


[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, especially when a nasty, mass-murdering dictator is breaking the terms of the cease-fire agreement he has signed with us. That ALONE is cause for re-invading and deposing the SOB.

Re: Runsfeld Clears Things Up
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Good point, John, haha;-) However, seeing as the U.N. resolutions regarding Iraq were in large part aligned with our own wishes, as well as with the terms of the cease-fire agreement, I think we do (and should) care.



[/ QUOTE ]

Hmmm.....quite a self-interested POV at the least.

Let me paraphrase.....We agree with the UN and therefore take it upon our own shoulders to unilaterally take whatever action we deem fit (with or without UN sanction), unless we disagree with the UN, and then we again reserve the right to do the same.


[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, especially when a nasty, mass-murdering dictator is breaking the terms of the cease-fire agreement he has signed with us. That ALONE is cause for re-invading and deposing the SOB.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would say that our discussion is over, as you're using the same justification for action that the terrorists are, and lower yourself to their level by doing so.........

Another Rumsfeld Quote that shows he doesnt\' get it...
 

Rumsfeld on the Iraq conflict
The enemy hears a big debate in the United States, and they have to wonder maybe all we have to do is wait and we'll win. We can't win militarily. They know that. The battle is here in the United States," he told "Fox News Sunday."

Does anyone see a problem with his thinking? He seems to think that the insurgents are sitting there with baiting breath waiting for US to decide when to leave Iraq, and then end up attacking. But of course, it is clear we aren't fighting a conventional enemy. These guys don't just want the Americans to leave Iraq (which is inevitable). They want to kill Americans. If you stay in Iraq they will just look for americans to kill. You might kill some of them, but others will take their place. Rumsfeld seems to think the insurgents want us to leave. I bet he doesn't even consider that some of them want us to stay, so they can have the chance to kill americans. But rumsfeld just thinks this is a conventional battle against conventional opponents. He just doesn't get it.

Re: Runsfeld Clears Things Up
 

<font color="blue">That ALONE is cause for re-invading and deposing the SOB. </font>

When you are part of the UN you have a responsibility to act WITH the UN unless an imminent threat is present.

And that's really what it's all about, isn't it? "Imminent Threat? I'm an armchair obvserver and I had enough sense to know that Saddam Hussein was NOT an imminent threat to myself, family, or fellow US citizens. Not for a while anyway. There was a little something ELSE I was kinda concenered about though. A group that calls themselves Al-Qada. THEY were an imminent threat! So what do we do?

We put the REAL threat Bin Laden on the side, squander the important good-will from previous unlikely nations due to 9-11, create a recruiting boom for our enemy that they couldn't have dreamed possible, created BAD will amongst almost everyone, and mired ourselves in an unwinnable war at the cost of billions of dollars and thousands of US soldier's lives!

Yes, Saddam needed to be dealt with as do several other evil dictators, but this was like taking your eye off the mob in front of your house with torches and guns, and going after the kid with the squirt gun, because he's one of them and may grow up to hurt us at a later date.

I predict that this administration will go down as the most incompetent in history. They have literally turned me from a life long republican into a democrat. I'd vote for Mickey Mouse if it prevents another idiot like Bush from getting in. In fact, I'll bet Mickey's got a watch with a picture of George W Bush on it.

Re: Runsfeld Clears Things Up
 

There have been too many debates about the 'Iraq War'. Most of them have involved pedantic drivel. The issue is irrelevant anyway.


[ QUOTE ]
Did we, or did we not, launch an unprovoked attack on a sovereign country?

[/ QUOTE ]

By God, I hope so. That's the best way to start a war.

Here are some good reasons for war:

1. Bold Conquest i.e., land grab.
2. Long-term economic and political gain.
3. Influence and dominance in trade routes.
4. Protection of important resources and/or to gain resources for self-interest and economic power.
5. Revenge/punishment for past acts.
6. Your God is more powerful than the other guys God - thus a war should be successful with all the attendant gains involved.
7. To free your 'country' or 'clan' from tyranny.
8. To spread your religion with all the attendant economic and political gain that comes with it.

Any one or combination of the above is a good reason(s) to engage in war. There are other reasons but this list touches on some of the most common and worthwhile ones for engaging in lustful battle.

This should answer any questions about the 'Iraq war'. So you see, there is no need for a ‘debate’.

It's time to move on to more important themes as - risk/reward analyses for a given war. Now that is something worth debating about.

-Zeno

Re: Runsfeld Clears Things Up
 

[ QUOTE ]
There have been too many debates about the 'Iraq War'. Most of them have involved pedantic drivel. The issue is irrelevant anyway.


[ QUOTE ]
Did we, or did we not, launch an unprovoked attack on a sovereign country?

[/ QUOTE ]

By God, I hope so. That's the best way to start a war.

Here are some good reasons for war:

1. Bold Conquest i.e., land grab.
2. Long-term economic and political gain.
3. Influence and dominance in trade routes.
4. Protection of important resources and/or to gain resources for self-interest and economic power.
5. Revenge/punishment for past acts.
6. Your God is more powerful than the other guys God - thus a war should be successful with all the attendant gains involved.
7. To free your 'country' or 'clan' from tyranny.
8. To spread your religion with all the attendant economic and political gain that comes with it.

Any one or combination of the above is a good reason(s) to engage in war. There are other reasons but this list touches on some of the most common and worthwhile ones for engaging in lustful battle.

This should answer any questions about the 'Iraq war'. So you see, there is no need for a ‘debate’.

It's time to move on to more important themes as - risk/reward analyses for a given war. Now that is something worth debating about.

-Zeno

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see this issue as irrelevant at all. History will be the best judge of that.

You are entitled to your opinion as to whether or not is 'pedantic drivel'.

It sounds like the 'god' that you're invoking is Mars, eh?

I see your 'reasons' as either borderline or outright sociopathic and reject them outright.

Re: Runsfeld Clears Things Up
 

[ QUOTE ]
Quickly, to list a few provocations:

-firing daily on US planes in no-fly zones

-many years of defying/obstructing/delaying U.N. resolutions and inspections

-purportedly having attempted to have Bush #1 assassinated

-encouraging and helping fuel the cottage industry of Palestinian suicide-bombing with 50K payments to families of suicide-bombers

[/ QUOTE ]

first, a comment on the OP. rumsfeld's answers were ridiculous. i don't think he answered a single thing. i felt bad for the general who was with him. he at least tried to make a case for something, not useless rhetoric.

secondly, if a US plane is in a no-fly zone, aren't they breaking a treaty themselves? if an iraq plane showed up in a no-fly zone over DC, they would just fire at it. they'd blow it up four times before it hits the ground.

sure, iraq ignored UN resolutions, kicked out inspectors. it warrants action against iraq, perhaps even a full invasion, but the deaths of thousands of soldiers and civilians, together with the actual cost of the war suggests a harder diplomatic effort was in order.

US planned, tried, and successfully assasinated many different foreign leaders, many of those were democratically elected. a purported plot to assasinate bush #1 is the case for tougher security around the president, not invasion of iraq.

the biggest surporter of palestinian terrorist movement (freedom fighters my ass) was probably not sadaam. it is probably extreme factions in saudi arabia and iran. i can't back that up with facts, but i will stand corrected if you can prove the opposite.

Re: Runsfeld Clears Things Up
 

[ QUOTE ]
first, a comment on the OP. rumsfeld's answers were ridiculous. i don't think he answered a single thing. i felt bad for the general who was with him. he at least tried to make a case for something, not useless rhetoric.

[/ QUOTE ]
Stop the presses! a politician giving ridiculous answers to questions?! Perish the thought!

[ QUOTE ]
secondly, if a US plane is in a no-fly zone, aren't they breaking a treaty themselves? if an iraq plane showed up in a no-fly zone over DC, they would just fire at it. they'd blow it up four times before it hits the ground.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not all that familiar with the exact terms of the treaty, but I believe the U.S./U.K. were permitted to enforce the No Fly Zones in the treaty. We have no treaty with Iraq that says they may fly over restricted airspace in the U.S. that I'm aware of. I think attacking one's army is all the declaration of war we need.

[ QUOTE ]
sure, iraq ignored UN resolutions, kicked out inspectors. it warrants action against iraq, perhaps even a full invasion, but the deaths of thousands of soldiers and civilians, together with the actual cost of the war suggests a harder diplomatic effort was in order.

[/ QUOTE ]
If Iraq was ignoring the UN resolutions, what makes you believe a "harder diplomatic effort" would work? What does "harder diplomatic effort" even mean?

[ QUOTE ]
US planned, tried, and successfully assasinated many different foreign leaders, many of those were democratically elected. a purported plot to assasinate bush #1 is the case for tougher security around the president, not invasion of iraq.

[/ QUOTE ]
But I thought one of the anti-war points was that Saddam wasn't a danger to any U.S. citizens. Clearly that's not the case if he's allowed to assassinate our citizens, least of all ex-presidents!

[ QUOTE ]
the biggest surporter of palestinian terrorist movement (freedom fighters my ass) was probably not sadaam. it is probably extreme factions in saudi arabia and iran. i can't back that up with facts, but i will stand corrected if you can prove the opposite.

[/ QUOTE ]
Why even mention it then? The point of mentioning Saddam's funding of Palestinian terrorists was to show exactly that: he's no stranger to terrorism. Is it so incredible to believe that Saddam would support terrorist that would attack Americans? I think it's clear that that has already happened.

Re: Runsfeld Clears Things Up
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yes, especially when a nasty, mass-murdering dictator is breaking the terms of the cease-fire agreement he has signed with us. That ALONE is cause for re-invading and deposing the SOB.

[/ QUOTE ]



I would say that our discussion is over, as you're using the same justification for action that the terrorists are, and lower yourself to their level by doing so.........


[/ QUOTE ]

You have got to be kidding me. When did we ever break a cease-fire agreement with terrorists?

Re: Runsfeld Clears Things Up
 

[ QUOTE ]
I see your 'reasons' as either borderline or outright sociopathic and reject them outright.

[/ QUOTE ]

Reject away. History, which you evoked in your post, provides conclusive proof that the reasons stated are very good reasons to go to war, and indeed have been the basis for many if not most wars. I sense some moralistic streak in you so I already know that we will simply disagree on this.

[ QUOTE ]
History will be the best judge of that.


[/ QUOTE ]

Depending of course on who writes the History. It is interesting that the 1848 war with Mexico, which the U.S. probably provoked, turned out to be a big gain for America. And most do not know or even care about the 'true history' of the how the war started.

[ QUOTE ]
It's time to move on to more important themes as - risk/reward analyses for a given war. Now that is something worth debating about.


[/ QUOTE ]

To beat the horse again - This is the real issue. The way the war was botched. The administration became too greed too fast. It they would have started the Iraq invasion during Bush's second term (he would have won easily because the Afghan war was more or less successful) then things may have gone more smoothly. Some more lead time to get ready, let the dust settle in the Afghan region and solidify your position and gains, would have been the wiser course to take. Then launch your propaganda campaign and get the throbbing masses all worked up for another go. Then your ratio of risk to reward would have been better, in my opinion.

But the most difficult risk/reward thing to calculate is the religion card. It’s the joker in the deck.

But enough of this, I already know you will disagree with all this so I suggest you put me on ignore and continue with your silly debate about the merits and justifications of the ‘Iraq War’.

-Zeno

Re: Runsfeld Clears Things Up
 

Don't forget that you need some intense combat every 20 years or so to ensure that future generations of your colonels, generals, and your joint chiefs of staff actually have some combat experience - because if future future generations must enter war, it would be utterly inconceivable for them to do so under military commanders with no combat experience.

Re: Runsfeld Clears Things Up
 

[ QUOTE ]
I think attacking one's army is all the declaration of war we need.

[/ QUOTE ]

this happens every day. i fear of living in a world where wars get started every day. scratch that, i fear we are already living in a world like that.

nothing in this administration's actions suggests that any diplomacy took place.

[ QUOTE ]
Clearly that's not the case if he's allowed to assassinate our citizens, least of all ex-presidents!

[/ QUOTE ]
i never suggested this. sadaam's lack of ability to assasinate anyone is what makes him a weak threat.

[ QUOTE ]
Why even mention it then? The point of mentioning Saddam's funding of Palestinian terrorists was to show exactly that: he's no stranger to terrorism. Is it so incredible to believe that Saddam would support terrorist that would attack Americans? I think it's clear that that has already happened.

[/ QUOTE ]

there's a dozen governments that support terrorists and would attack americans if given the chance. of course we can't ignore them, but it does not imply we should invade all or any of them. invasion without an imminent threat is short-sighted at best. it breeds even more terrorists and hardly scares any other nation from harboring them.

Re: Runsfeld Clears Things Up
 

[ QUOTE ]
this happens every day. i fear of living in a world where wars get started every day. scratch that, i fear we are already living in a world like that.

[/ QUOTE ]
Don't you think a *credible* threat of invasion would deter these attacks? If I'm in a room full of 10 year olds and say "If anyone touches me, I'll punch them in the face" and follow up on that threat when someone violates it, it seems intuitive that you will not be "touched" by anyone else.

[ QUOTE ]
nothing in this administration's actions suggests that any diplomacy took place.

[/ QUOTE ]
Haven't we tried diplomacy for the better part of 13 years? What evidence is there it would have worked this time?

[ QUOTE ]
saddam's lack of ability to assasinate anyone is what makes him a weak threat.

[/ QUOTE ]
Uh, he's tried to. Not being successful in his attempt to assassinate a former president doesn't make him a weak threat. I'd say that makes him a bigger threat.

[ QUOTE ]
there's a dozen governments that support terrorists and would attack americans if given the chance. of course we can't ignore them, but it does not imply we should invade all or any of them.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not advocating immediate invasion of any government that supports terrorism. Iraq had many other factors going for it that made invasion a better option.

[ QUOTE ]
invasion without an imminent threat is short-sighted at best. it breeds even more terrorists and hardly scares any other nation from harboring them.

[/ QUOTE ]
Tell that to Libya.

Re: Runsfeld Clears Things Up
 

in your post you suggested that

- iraq may have had a credible invasion threat to the US

- punching 10 year olds is a valid method of education

- ignoring that in 13 years since first gulf war sadaam was essentially incapacitated, which is further supported by no findings of WMD's

- went from a purported assasination plan to an actual attempt

- attributed Libya as a success of the war in iraq. if we ignored arguments that it is another incapacitated dictator nation, we still couldn't overlook that Libya is not actually in the middle east and that it was denouncing terrorism and giving up suspected and accused terrorists since the late 1990's (source ). the restatement of its policy after the iraq invasion does nothing to thwart insurgency, terrorism, or anything else.

i'll save space in this forum and just bulk your statements together as false.

edit : i am done with this thread. don't bother responding.

Re: Runsfeld Clears Things Up
 

[ QUOTE ]
Here are some good reasons for war:

1. Bold Conquest i.e., land grab.
2. Long-term economic and political gain.
3. Influence and dominance in trade routes.
4. Protection of important resources and/or to gain resources for self-interest and economic power.
5. Revenge/punishment for past acts.
6. Your God is more powerful than the other guys God - thus a war should be successful with all the attendant gains involved.
7. To free your 'country' or 'clan' from tyranny.
8. To spread your religion with all the attendant economic and political gain that comes with it.

Any one or combination of the above is a good reason(s) to engage in war.

[/ QUOTE ]

You have an interesting definition of "good". I see only one of those that's clearly a "good" reason.

Re: Runsfeld Clears Things Up
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Here are some good reasons for war:

1. Bold Conquest i.e., land grab.
2. Long-term economic and political gain.
3. Influence and dominance in trade routes.
4. Protection of important resources and/or to gain resources for self-interest and economic power.
5. Revenge/punishment for past acts.
6. Your God is more powerful than the other guys God - thus a war should be successful with all the attendant gains involved.
7. To free your 'country' or 'clan' from tyranny.
8. To spread your religion with all the attendant economic and political gain that comes with it.

Any one or combination of the above is a good reason(s) to engage in war.

[/ QUOTE ]

You have an interesting definition of "good". I see only one of those that's clearly a "good" reason.

[/ QUOTE ]

...........#7

Well Thought Out Post, Makes Valid Points Worth Considering (n/m)
 

.............

Re: Runsfeld Clears Things Up
 

[ QUOTE ]
Don't forget that you need some intense combat every 20 years or so to ensure that future generations of your colonels, generals, and your joint chiefs of staff actually have some combat experience - because if future future generations must enter war, it would be utterly inconceivable for them to do so under military commanders with no combat experience.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you envision yourself as one of those military commanders that 'needs the experience'?

Or, do you fall into the 'cannon fodder' category of most of the rest of us?

Do you have a resume in either of the above categories?

The Shining Light
 

Who could forget the classic "Where are WMDs?"

[ QUOTE ]
We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat.
Donald Rumsfeld
ABC Interview, March 30, 2003


[/ QUOTE ]

Uhhh, could you draw me a map there, Rummy?
[img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Re: Runsfeld Clears Things Up
 

[ QUOTE ]

-purportedly having attempted to have Bush #1 assassinated



[/ QUOTE ]

Err...the US has an active policy of supporting assasination attempts. Are you really suggesting that all those countries should be able to then attack soverign US soil? (not withstanding thefact that none of them would have the power)

Re: Runsfeld Clears Things Up
 

Cheney also cited the assassination attempt in his justification of the war in his speech yesterday.

Re: Runsfeld Clears Things Up
 

[ QUOTE ]
<font color="blue">That ALONE is cause for re-invading and deposing the SOB. </font>

When you are part of the UN you have a responsibility to act WITH the UN unless an imminent threat is present.

And that's really what it's all about, isn't it? "Imminent Threat? I'm an armchair obvserver and I had enough sense to know that Saddam Hussein was NOT an imminent threat to myself, family, or fellow US citizens. Not for a while anyway. There was a little something ELSE I was kinda concenered about though. A group that calls themselves Al-Qada. THEY were an imminent threat! So what do we do?

We put the REAL threat Bin Laden on the side, squander the important good-will from previous unlikely nations due to 9-11, create a recruiting boom for our enemy that they couldn't have dreamed possible, created BAD will amongst almost everyone, and mired ourselves in an unwinnable war at the cost of billions of dollars and thousands of US soldier's lives!

Yes, Saddam needed to be dealt with as do several other evil dictators, but this was like taking your eye off the mob in front of your house with torches and guns, and going after the kid with the squirt gun, because he's one of them and may grow up to hurt us at a later date.

I predict that this administration will go down as the most incompetent in history. They have literally turned me from a life long republican into a democrat. I'd vote for Mickey Mouse if it prevents another idiot like Bush from getting in. In fact, I'll bet Mickey's got a watch with a picture of George W Bush on it.

[/ QUOTE ]


....after re-reading this string, I think Lestat has done a nice job of summing up this issue....