Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst 12345
Results 81 to 85 of 85
  1. Theta's Avatar
    Posts
    98 Posts
    Global Posts
    112 Global Posts
    #81  
    Theta, you make some sense and here's where I agree with you. A false threat to the US security is was what drew us in, and now we should try to get international support to help us out of this unfortunate situation.
    Thank you.
    I'll go on to say I think our faulty CIA intelligence was not so much of a problem as it was an opportunity for the Bush Administration. They had us believing in WMD and Saddam-al queda just long enough to commit us to Iraq.
    It was the entire world's intelligence agencies that believed in the WMD. If the Bush administration saw that as an opportunity, I don't know or care. The action taken was appropriate, as the threat was accepted by everyone (including Kerry) and being real.

    Now we are left with the $150 billion and 1000 troops dead loss (and counting) price tag, for what? Sparring with the local thugs who are vying for a piece of the Iraq pie is not helping us in protecting our own security.
    We have killed thousands of potential terrorists. The same people who could in turn attack our civilians both at home and abroad. The "stand out" resistance fighters in Iraq are not Iraqi civilians, but domestic and foreign terrorists and terrorist supporters. Better to fight them there, then here.

    The price is high, in dollar amounts, the loss of American lives while tragic, is acceptable considering the alternative - thousands killed here and abroad.

    I wish we could have used those resources more productively, like revamping our intelligence (which Bush is dragging his feet on) and stepping up our efforts to go after the real people behind 911.
    Agreed entirely. But if we accept that we went there with just cause, where people in this country disagree is what has happened since then. The Bush administration is in a no-win situation. If they just left Iraq without helping to rebuild, people would be screaming bloody murder, and Iraq would contnue to be a region that supports terrrorists. Since we stay, and no WMD have been found, in hindsight people say Bush lied about there existance to justify he secret desires to go to war in Iraq.

    Kind of a cake and eat it to scenario. Damned if he does, damned if he doesn't. But I'm cold and calous. I say leave, and if another dangerous regime starts up again, send the troops back until they get it right.
  2. #82  
    Quote Originally Posted by Theta
    If the Bush administration saw that as an opportunity, I don't know or care.
    ah, but I care, fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me (GWB thats how you say it btw). I don't want to get fooled again:

    http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...ea/iraq_no_wmd

    The better to fight the terrorists in Iraq than in our country argument, I do not agree with. These people we are fighting now are local thugs who are being supported by Iran and maybe Syria in a local power grab that does not affect US security. Killing them, however is a great way for bin ladin and others to recruit more people to organizations who really do threaten our security, like al queda.
    Last edited by cellmatrix; 09/18/2004 at 08:04 PM.
  3. #83  
    The reason to invade Iraq was that all indications, our intellegence agencies, britain, Russia, China, any country that had been following what Sadam had been up to with the UN inspectors, agreed that Iraq had WMD. That fact, coupled with the demonstrated volunerability of our borders to terrorists, made Sadam's Iraq a clear and present danger to the United States.
    But the world's intelligence agencies didn't believe that Saddam had WMD, they thought he might but there was a lot of qualification around that. The information was misrepresented as hard fact.
    Last edited by PeterBrown; 09/20/2004 at 05:35 AM.
    Animo et Fide
  4. #84  
    Quote Originally Posted by PeterBrown
    But the world's intelligence agencies didn't believe that Saddam had WMD, they thought he might but there was a lot of qualification around that. The information was misrepresented as hard fact.
    Yes, misprepresentation is the name of the Bush game. I am glad that at least one other person here realizes that.
    Last edited by cellmatrix; 09/18/2004 at 07:59 PM.
  5. #85  
    I came across this game that is a simple but interesting view on the dilema regarding whether you should or shouldn't strike pre-emptively at terrorists. Try it out.
Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst 12345

Posting Permissions