Powell admits to misleading the public about Iraq-Al Qaeda

[ACPlayer]

Frankly, history will judge this war not by whether or not Saddam had WMD, but by its analysis of whether the 400+ lives (to date), 3500+ injured US soldiers, 10000+ dead/injured iraqis, 160Billion dollars in expenses (to date) has:

-- made the middle east safer
-- led Iraq to a better future
-- made US any safer

Eight months (not a long time to be sure) after the end of major hostilities:

The middle east is not safer
Iraqi future is all promises presently
The US is no safer

Hopefully all of these will change.

[ACPlayer]

So -- what's a liberal, oh learned and wise one?

Would a country with every one thinking on the same non-liberal page be a better or worse one?

[MMMMMM]

ACPlayer: "Eight months (not a long time to be sure) after the end of major hostilities:

The middle east is not safer
Iraqi future is all promises presently
The US is no safer"

On what grounds do you claim the Midle East is not safer? Libya has voluntarily come out of the closet and agreed to disarm of its WMD, and our forces are in a strategic location from whence they can drop-kick any regional terrorist enclaves should the need arise. So...how can you make such a statement...unsupported, and probably wrong to boot.

Iraqi future is indeed mostly promises and hopes at present, but at least they have a chance for a turn...unlike when ruled by that depraved Stalinist despot.

On what grounds do you claim the US is no safer? al-Qaeda has been deprived of their choice central location, terror plots have been foiled, 2/3 of al-Qaeda leadership has been captured or killed...yet you make this unsupported statement as if stating a fact. Unsupported, and probably wrong...just as Dean absurdly proposed that 1) we were no safer, and 2) that he wouldn't want to prejudge bin-Laden's guilt.

Common sense does appear to be in somewhat short supply these days.

[ACPlayer]

Libya, like other such countries had a failed nuclear program that they claim to have given up. THis is primarily due to the sanctions that have been in place and not primarily due to Iraq. Those sanctions led to their admitting a role in lockerbie and now to this latest step.

So far Iraqis have promises. Perhaps they will head towards a free society, perhaps they will head towards a Shah like US backed police state. Time will tell.

The operation in Afghanistan is responsible for the decimation of the Al Qaeda leadership, Iraq had no demonstrated relationship to Al Qaeda - except in Dub(ya)ious analysis of a purported meeting between operatives.

We will only be safe if the administration actually takes on its friends and allies in Saudi and Egypt. Event Richard Perle (not exactly a liberal, except where he disagrees with Wake Up) in an NPR interview recently acknowledged that our relationships with these two countries is the principle source of anomisty against the US by the middle east and a principle cause of our being a terrorist target.

You are right about one thing, the only benefit from the costs I catalogues earlier is that a criminal does not run Iraq. Other than that, your thinking is clouded by your well established bigotry.

[Cyrus]

"The PLO says one thing diplomatically but behind closed doors does the exact opposite."

Damn, I never got to have those nifty X-ray glasses I saw advertised at the back of the comic books. Seems like someone here got 'em, though!

Would you consider lending 'em and for how much ?

"Palestinian pledges to Israel's "secure borders" have been shown to be worth less than the shavings of Arafat's beard. I don't believe the PLO has ever even intended for Israel to have secure borders--wherever those borders might be located. It's a bald-faced lie and a diplomatic trick--just like when Arafat "condemns" terrorism"

It is impossible to argue rationally with anyone who believes such things. You dismiss statements, dismiss facts and you dismiss events. You will only accept your predermined beliefs. You actually adapt facts & events to suit your predetermined world view. (Note that this is the very definition of prejudice.)

No matter what the Palestinians say or do, you will never be convinced that they mean what they say. I'm sure that this can make you happier (check out Wogga, for such an example of a happy man; he assures that happiness will come to anyone who admits to himself that all Ay-rabs are inferior).

But it sure as hell doesn't make you wiser.

[MMMMMM]

"No matter what the Palestinians say or do, you will never be convinced that they mean what they say."

No, Cyrus, I am quite convinced that Hamas, for instance, means to destroy Israel, as they have pledged.

I'm just not convinced that Arafat or the PLO has ever really meant it when they agreed to Israel's right to "secure borders." But hey, you go right ahead and believe Arafat if you like. I've just lived too long to believe that a former hijacker and chronic supporter of terrorists ever really wanted peace.

[Al_Capone_Junior]

[Al_Capone_Junior]

[ QUOTE ]
I've just lived too long to believe that a former hijacker and chronic supporter of terrorists ever really wanted peace

[/ QUOTE ]

But arafat won the NOBEL PEACE PRIZE, how can we doubt the FKhead! My respect for that prize went WAY down, needless to say. Hell next year they'll give it to saddam and bin laden.

al

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
So -- what's a liberal, oh learned and wise one?

[/ QUOTE ]

A political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties.

[ QUOTE ]
Would a country with every one thinking on the same non-liberal page be a better or worse one?

[/ QUOTE ]

It would be worse, different political opinions are essential for progress and to prevent fanatical policies from being implemented without a full discourse. Just because those liberal opinions would be different and provide an alternative point of view does not necessarily make them correct. For that matter if today's liberals actually espoused the views of a well defined liberal I would gladly welcome their policies. The problem arises when so called liberals begin to practice their bastardized version of Liberalism.


PS: In the future I would appreciate it if you continue to refer to me as the "learned and wise one." It conveys a proper and accurate sense of respect and dignity which I have earned should be afforded. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[MMMMMM]

Wake up CALL's definition of a liberal:

"A political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties."

Good definition IMO.

"For that matter if today's liberals actually espoused the views of a well defined liberal I would gladly welcome their policies. The problem arises when so called liberals begin to practice their bastardized version of Liberalism."

Thank you, Wake up CALL...the above two paragraphs are like a nut in a fine shell, O Learned and Wise one.

To expand a bit: Many today waving the "liberal" banner seek to control others, rather than seeking to ensure the protection of individual rights. They place equality of results higher than equality of rights. That is the most insidious and potentially dangerous error that they make.

Our government was not created in order to ensure equality of results, but rather, to protect equality of rights. Turning this principle on its head, as many so-called liberals are wont to do, is a very popular and very bastardized version of liberalism.