Strange thing about Iraq

[blahblahblah]

AFAIK, Kerry has never announced a foreign policy stance. It was interesting to see how somebody outside the US assumed he would have a more tame foreign policy.

Also, if you look at your post objectively, you should notice some interesting trends. You mentioned Bush 7 times, while mentioning Kerry 5 times. For a question just about Kerry, I find that interesting to say the least. What do you think about that?

And as a note, you may want to check the validity of those sources about the economic damage Bush has done. Its funny how much blame one man can get for doing practially nothing to the economy. The only control he has is over taxes which he did cut. Other than that, Bush can't stop outsourcing or recessions. That is a part of a natural economic cycle. When considering the next president the only economic policy you should see is what his tax stance is (it gets a bit more complicated by that is the general jist of that). Claims to stop outsourcing or improve the economy pretty much are blatant lies. My point? Neither Bush nor Kerry can really affect our economy. However, that is a debate for another time and another thread. I thought you would like to be enlightened.

PS - I was hoping for a short reply.

 

[BabyHeadCrab]

Frankly, with the threat of terrorism apparently everywhere, I'd say the best solution would be to use diplomacy instead of war. The main reason Terror exists is that other cultures believe that the US and other western countries hate Islam and want to see it abolished.

The shoe-bomber from a while back claimed that he was ready to blow up the plane because "America hates us just because we believe in Allah".

Now if someone sees you as a threat, is the solution to convince them you're not evil, or is it to blow up their kinsmen?

That's why Kerry's so-called "weak" stance on international diplomacy is far, far better. I never want to see a terrorist attack Canada, or anyone else for that matter. Being allies to what the world (rather justifiably) sees as violent, reckless US is, making us us and people everywhere, much less safe.

That's the biggest issue for me. I'm pretty much appalled at the whole war in Iraq situation, and the War on terror. Bush is focussed entirely on 'wars' and how he can defeat anyone who threatens (or, in Iraq's case, doesn't threaten) the US and he doesn't need proof or approval or justification. That's disturbing talk coming from the largest country, one which no-one could ever hope to stop if they go too far. And , like I said, Bush's plan to fight fire with a bigger fire is just adding fuel to the flames and burning everyone.

And, to me, it's the single biggest problem of our time. One which Bush hasn't yet realized, but Kerry has.


Kerry is also a man who doesn't let his religious beliefs interfere with his position. I've written extensively elsewheres about how Bush's attempts to make christianity influence law is an extremely harmful violation of church-state separation. Stem cells, gay marriage, abortion. Kerry's religious beliefs are against those things, but he is staunchly opposed to forcing every american to stay away from them just because one religion says so.
Bush, of course is the opposite. And I think that his attempts to make all of america more christian is selfish, discriminatory and frankly, an apparent grab at the christian vote.

This, honestly is a huge issue for me, because I REALLY hate discrimination.

So, basically, Kerry will apparently keep church and state the hell away from each other (preventing infringement of other's beliefs and discrimination), and fix the War on terror, which is currently just fighting threat with threat and violence with violence.

Both of which make people more free.

Plus, I've read everywhere about all the economic damage Bush has done.
I really don't care too much about US economics, but any sensible argument against bush is one that I support.

amen brother. seriously. No more scary religious dictator type leaders who feel the need to say god lead him to do things such as destroy hundreds of our nations children in a war that was approached appalingly bad after executed anyway. I honestly dont see Bush being any different from Osama.

 

[Sprafa]

AFAIK, Kerry has never announced a foreign policy stance. It was interesting to see how somebody outside the US assumed he would have a more tame foreign policy.

Also, if you look at your post objectively, you should notice some interesting trends. You mentioned Bush 7 times, while mentioning Kerry 5 times. For a question just about Kerry, I find that interesting to say the least. What do you think about that?

And as a note, you may want to check the validity of those sources about the economic damage Bush has done. Its funny how much blame one man can get for doing practially nothing to the economy. The only control he has is over taxes which he did cut. Other than that, Bush can't stop outsourcing or recessions. That is a part of a natural economic cycle. When considering the next president the only economic policy you should see is what his tax stance is (it gets a bit more complicated by that is the general jist of that). Claims to stop outsourcing or improve the economy pretty much are blatant lies. My point? Neither Bush nor Kerry can really affect our economy. However, that is a debate for another time and another thread. I thought you would like to be enlightened.

ah yes of course....no President can ever touch the economy....

The fact that all the Presidents that tried to use Reaganomics brought huge deficits and sunk down the economy is a very strange coincidence tho....


And how can you think the War on Terror is being won....

 

[BabyHeadCrab]

I wish people would end this whole "war on terror" buisness.. this cannot be won or even helped by means being executed so far. A war on ignorance would help U.S. foreign policy far more.

 

[blahblahblah]

ah yes of course....no President can ever touch the economy....

The fact that all the Presidents that tried to use Reaganomics brought huge deficits and sunk down the economy is a very strange coincidence tho....

Would you mind answering my question above, please? With minimal Bush bashing, Bush isn't a part of my question at all.

Seriously, don't even try to school me about taxes, economics or business. That is like CptStern teaching you about Portugal's history. Taxes, economics, and business is my home court.

He is a brief summary: Bush used Reganomics (reduced taxes), huge defecits (through additional government spending), and yet he sunk down the economy (that was slowing down before he took office)? I must of missed something. Even with a massive tax cut and a massive increase in government spending only has a slight effect on our economy. Government policy (like tax cuts and additional government spending) accounts for a microscopic portion of our GDP.


[Edit]: I thought I said no economic discussion. I'm afraid the soup nazi may come to this thread. ;(

 

[Sprafa]

So, really, the huge deficit and the tax cuts have nothing to do with each other.

And addiotional Governemnt spending, wasn't that a Bush idea?

 

[blahblahblah]

So, really, the huge deficit and the tax cuts have nothing to do with each other.

And addiotional Governemnt spending, wasn't that a Bush idea?

You are confusing me.

If I am understanding your question, yes there is most likely a link between a tax cut and the increase in defecit.

With that said, the increase in defecit can be also attributed to numerous other factors such as the war in Iraq, the increase security costs since 9/11, various increased government spending, and less revenue taken in since the US has a weak economy (in no particular order). Don't forget the federal budget is passed by Congress. The President only signs it off. However, he does influence it.

The government defecit is only loosely coorelated with the economy. Telling me that he did nothing to help the economy, but then on the same hand saying that he shouldn't have reduced taxes and increased spending because that increases the defecit is wrong. The only economic policy the president really has is taxes. He frankly did more to the economy than what I would have done if I was president.

He did the tax breaks and increase government spending as a last ditch effort. The recession the US is recovering from is one of the worst recessions it has experienced since the great depression. Bush saw that and did an all out effort to curb it. Unfortuantely, government policy has a limited effect on economics.

Also, don't forget that tax policy is controlled by Congress as well. And taxes are near an all-time low.

 

[Sprafa]

You are confusing me.

If I am understanding your question, yes there is most likely a link between a tax cut and the increase in defecit.

With that said, the increase in defecit can be also attributed to numerous other factors such as the war in Iraq, the increase security costs since 9/11, various increased government spending, and less revenue taken in since the US has a weak economy (in no particular order). Don't forget the federal budget is passed by Congress. The President only signs it off. However, he does influence it.

The government defecit is only loosely coorelated with the economy. Telling me that he did nothing to help the economy, but then on the same hand saying that he shouldn't have reduced taxes and increased spending because that increases the defecit is wrong. The only economic policy the president really has is taxes. He frankly did more to the economy than what I would have done if I was president.

He did the tax breaks and increase government spending as a last ditch effort. The recession the US is recovering from is one of the worst recessions it has experienced since the great depression. Bush saw that and did an all out effort to curb it. Unfortuantely, government policy has a limited effect on economics.

Also, don't forget that tax policy is controlled by Congress as well. And taxes are near an all-time low.

The Congress is currently Republican. You can't get away with that one.

Show me an evidence of recession.

President Bush has implemented three tax cuts during his term in office: The Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 (EGTRRA), the Job Creation and Workers Assistance Act of 2002 (JCWA), and Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 (JGTRRA).

While Bush's supporters claim that the tax cuts increase the pace of economic recovery and job creation, his opponents allege that they favor the wealthy and special interests and that Bush reversed a national surplus into a historic deficit.

According to a report (pdf) (ftp://ftp.cbo.gov/57xx/doc5746/Report.pdf) by the non-partisan U.S. Congressional Budget Office [40] (http://www.cbo.gov), fully one-third of President Bush's tax cuts from the year 2000 to 2003 have gone to people with the top one percent of income (who earn an average of US$1.2 million annually), and two-thirds went to the top twenty percent (who earn an average of US$203.7 thousand annually). According to the same report, the tax cuts have decreased the tax burden for higher income brackets and increased the burden for middle and lower income brackets. (NYT) (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/13/politics/campaign/13tax.html?pagewanted=all)

On February 7th, 2003, ten Nobel laureates and over 450 economists from universities and tax policy institutes released this statement (pdf) (http://www.epinet.org/stmt/2003/statement_signed.pdf) regarding Bush's tax cuts. [41] (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/2735269.stm)

The non-partisian Committee on Economic Development [42] (http://www.ced.org) released this report (pdf) (http://www.ced.org/docs/reports/report_deficit.pdf) regarding the effects of Bush's economic policies on economic recovery and job creation.

Of the US$2.4 trillion budgeted for 2005, about US$450 billion are planned to be spent on defense. Congress approved US$87 billion for Iraq and Afghanistan in November, and had approved an earlier US$79 billion package last spring. Most of those funds were for U.S. military operations in the two countries. [43] (http://www.iht.com/articles/127694.html)
George W. Bush speaks to firefighters on November 4, 2003, as California Governor-Elect Arnold Schwarzenegger and Gov. Gray Davis listen.
Enlarge
George W. Bush speaks to firefighters on November 4, 2003, as California Governor-Elect Arnold Schwarzenegger and Gov. Gray Davis listen.

Bush supports free trade policies and legislation but has resorted to protectionist policies on occasion. Tariffs on imported steel imposed by the White House in March 2002 were lifted after the WTO ruled them illegal. Bush explained that the safeguard measures had "achieved their purpose", and "as a result of changed economic circumstances", it was time to lift them. [44] (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2003/12/05/bush_lifts_steel_import_tariffs/)

On August 31st, 2003, World Trade Organization arbitrators authorized the European Union and other leading U.S. trade partners to impose sanctions against the United States for violation of global trade laws. The decision by the W.T.O. is the latest example of several recent cases where Washington has been found to be in breach of international trade rules. [45] (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/01/business/worldbusiness/01trade.html) [46] (http://www.grandforks.com/mld/grandforks/business/9549364.htm)

Bush is an advocate of the partial privatization of Social Security wherein an individual would be free to invest a portion of his Social Security taxes in personal retirement accounts.

During Bush's presidency, the U.S. population has risen by about three million people per year. The unemployment survey that asks businesses how many workers they employ shows 2.4 million jobs were lost in the last three years. The household survey, asking individuals whether they have a job, shows that the number of jobs has risen by 450,000. The unemployment rate was 5.6% in June, 2004, compared to 4.2% when Bush came into office. By way of comparison, the unemployment rate fell every year of Clinton's presidency from 7.5% when he took office to 4.2% upon leaving office, averaging 5.6% over the full term. [47] (http://www.bls.gov/) [48]

 

[Sprafa]

Take some more of wikipedia

Bush supported the Clear Skies Act of 2003, which repeals or reduces air pollution controls. This act reduces caps on toxic chemicals in the air and cuts enforcement of the Clean Air Act, and is opposed by environmentalist groups such as the Sierra Club. Bush has faced heavy criticism over his advocacy for the act, with Henry A. Waxman (D-California) describing its title as "clear propaganda." Among other things, the Clear Skies Act:

* Weakens the current cap on mercury pollution levels from five tons per year to 26 tons.
* Weakens the current cap on nitrogen oxide pollution levels from 1.25 million tons to 2.1 million tons, allowing 68 percent more NOx pollution.
* Weakens the current cap on sulphur dioxide pollution levels from two million tons to 4.5 million tons, allowing 225 percent more SO2 pollution.
* Delays enforcement of smog-and-soot pollution standards until 2015.
* Allows industrial buildings undergoing renovation, modernization, or expansion not to install machines that allow the building to come into current environmental standards compliance.

By 2018, the Clear Skies Act would allow 450,000 more tons of NOx, one million more tons of SO2, and 9.5 more tons of mercury than what would be allowed by enforcement of the Clean Air Act.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush


He reduced the taxes for the wealthy and incresed for the poor. How good is that?


And now the Arabs

In April 2004 Bush announced that he endorsed Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's plan to disengage from the Gaza Strip but retain Jewish settlements in the West Bank. He also announced agreement with Sharon's policy of denying the right of return. This led to condemnation from Palestinian President Yasser Arafat, Arab and European governments [37] (http://politics.guardian.co.uk/foreignaffairs/story/0,11538,1195710,00.html) and was a major departure from previous U.S. foreign policy in the region. Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak commented Bush's policies had led to an 'unprecedented hatred' of Arabs for the U.S. [38]

 

[blahblahblah]

The government defecit is only loosely coorelated with the economy

I said this wrong. I can't explain how the government defecit affects the economy without spending the better part of an hour doing it. Basically, the government defecit does not affect the economy at all. THe defecit is only the result of spending more than the revenues you take in.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

Bush isn't a part of my question at all.

What do you think of the democratic canididate John Kerry? Do you think he will do a better job than Bush?

*cough*


It's true, the point you're getting at though. I do prefer Kerry mostly out of an extreme dislike for Bush. I really do think he's unfit for command.

AFAIK, Kerry has never announced a foreign policy stance. It was interesting to see how somebody outside the US assumed he would have a more tame foreign policy.

He has announced that he will be more sensitive with international relations (which got him mocked by Cheney), with a much more diplomatic approach to the world with much less show of force, and he has already said that his plan for the Iraq war would have been more concerned with liberating the people and setting up a strong, safe government with them, rather than destroying Saddam and hoping for the best.

Both get kudos points from me, although he could stand to be tougher on the Iraq war.

As for economic stuff, I really don't care, but terms like the 'biggest debt in history' and 'multi-trillion dollar deficit' get bandied around enough that you can't help but notice.

Also, if you look at your post objectively, you should notice some interesting trends. You mentioned Bush 7 times, while mentioning Kerry 5 times. For a question just about Kerry, I find that interesting to say the least. What do you think about that?

Of course, if you look at it logically, the "Kerry" points, in total, are longer.
Plus, as I pointed out, the question was about Bush too, and why Kerry would be better.

 

[Sprafa]

There is no proof of recession, it looks like a Republican excuse to their awful records in economy.

 

[blahblahblah]

Take some more of wikipedia



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush


He reduced the taxes for the wealthy and incresed for the poor. How good is that?


And now the Arabs

Wow. Actually read you links.

Some random links that you gave. I would give quotes form PDF, but that file type is from the devil.

But the report also gave Republicans support for their contention that tax reduction had brought some benefit to people in almost all income categories. People with the bottom fifth of income, for example, averaging earnings of only $16,620, saw their effective tax rate drop to 5.2 percent from 6.7.

"Regardless of how one views the specifics of the Bush plan, there is wide agreement that its purpose is a permanent change in the tax structure and not the creation of jobs and growth in the near term," the economists said in a statement published by the Economic Policy Institute.

This isn't a point, but a statement. Dividends (from stocks) are doubled taxed (in some cases triple taxed). Once when the corporation earns the money and again when the profits (net of tax) are paid out to investors. By reducing this double tax, the effective rate of return for dividend investments increases.

Bush is an advocate of the partial privatization of Social Security wherein an individual would be free to invest a portion of his Social Security taxes in personal retirement accounts.

How is that a bad thing? Yup, earning a higher rate of return so I can have SS when I retire is a bad thing. Do you know how Social Security earns its interest right now? I'll let you look that one up.

I could go on, but it is pointless. Learn about economics, business and taxes before you start quoting stuff you don't truly understand.

Recession. I could give you links, or I could give you a google search

http://www.google.com/search?q=US+Recession&sourceid=firefox&start=0&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

I'm sorry, apparently I over exagerated the recent recession. It is not as bad as I thought it was.

http://www.nber.org/cycles/recessions.html

That source above is as official as you will get. They measure the term recession different than most other new sources. That explains why dates vary when a recession begins and ends.

I'm going to sleep.

 

[Sprafa]

I meant a recession not created by Republicans. I know the economy is slow, but you say it's natural, I say it was Reaganomics.


http://www.mises.org/fullstory.aspx?control=1544

 

[blahblahblah]

I meant a recession not created by Republicans. I know the economy is slow, but you say it's natural, I say it was Reaganomics.


http://www.mises.org/fullstory.aspx?control=1544

The recession officially started before "Reganomics" started.

There were signs the recession was impending. Stock bubble burst anybody?

 

[Sprafa]

The recession officially started before "Reganomics" started.

There were signs the recession was impending. Stock bubble burst anybody?

ok, let's say there was/is a recession. Then Bush lowered taxes, according to him because of the recession. He then increased greatly Government spending. And that was the right thing to do because...?

 

[blahblahblah]

ok, let's say there was/is a recession. Then Bush lowered taxes, according to him because of the recession. He then increased greatly Government spending. And that was the right thing to do because...?

I implore you to take a class in economics at your local college/university. This will become clear as day if you do.

I hope you understand this explanation because I am really going to sleep after this. I mean it.

By lowering taxes, that means the average person has more money to spend on goods which should increase demand for goods which improves the economy. Increasing government spending works along the same lines. The government spends more money on goods which increases demand for those goods which improves the economy.

Improving the economy helps everybody.

Its effectiveness is limited though. In order to make a dramatic/immediate effect, it would require the federal government to spend way more money than what it currently is. What Bush/Congress did was a helpful to the economy none the less. It just wasn't a dramatic improvement like most people think it should be. This is because the GDP is much larger than government spending.

 

[seinfeldrules]

Now, what does that mean?

When the Director of the most advanced and powerful Intelligence Agency in the world tells you it is a "slam dunk" do you seriously ignore him? That has got to be a joke.

Please tell me exactly what evidence of WMDs

Have you seen the pictures of thousands of Kurds that he gassed (WMD) for no reason? How about the scientists he had working on the stuff?

'Freedom for 25 million iraquis.'

I understand this isnt important to your case against Bush, but it is a major component of the debate. If you are so biased you can not see the good in this, then God help us all.

Like how the mega-rich US should just stand by and let the UN crumble because it's all those other country's faults.

You keep saying the US has too much power, we do too much. Yet you expect us to help save an organization which has proved ineffective since its start? It is pretty much a forum for anti- Americanism/Israel. Why should we help it out? Where is Great Britian, France, Germany, China, Spain etc....

yet the US does nothing (Sudan)

Where is the UN? The US has more pressing concerns at the time.

 

[seinfeldrules]

made a great case (against atrocities),

We did make a great case against his atrocities, they were well documented during the 90's. Actually, they were documented for 12 long years. What did the UN do? Pass resolution after resolution. Dont blame the US for ignoring the Iraqi people, blame the UN. They were the only organization that could have gone in and ended this mess 12 years ago.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

When the Director of the most advanced and powerful Intelligence Agency in the world tells you it is a "slam dunk" do you seriously ignore him? That has got to be a joke.

...

Have you seen the pictures of thousands of Kurds that he gassed (WMD) for no reason? How about the scientists he had working on the stuff?

No, I haven't seen those. Saddam used gas way back a long time ago, but nothing that I know of before the War. And if the US really had photographic evidence of a current WMD plan, one would evpect to see it every couple minutes on CNN.

Source, please.

And, no, it's not a joke. Define to me what a "slam dunk" means as a source of evidence.

Like I said, you can call anything a slam dunk. What evidence is he calling a slam dunk?
It could just as easily have meant "we've got enough fake evidence to slam dunk the US into a war it doesn't want."

I understand this isnt important to your case against Bush, but it is a major component of the debate. If you are so biased you can not see the good in this, then God help us all.

Of course it's good. But even you admit it is a minor part of the debate. It was only a minor motive for the war, and the only good part, IMO. And even that part isn't working too well.

You keep saying the US has too much power, we do too much. Yet you expect us to help save an organization which has proved ineffective since its start? It is pretty much a forum for anti- Americanism/Israel. Why should we help it out? Where is Great Britian, France, Germany, China, Spain etc....

The UN is in need of help. Everyone knows that. But Bush's disregard for it works against america as a symbolic snubbing of the entire world.

The billions from the Iraq war could have been spent on working alongside the UN, rather than in an invasion that disregarded it.

I can all but guarantee that you'd have more allies in the coalition if the US and UN worked together to fight Saddam.
The WMD fiasco wouldn't be seen as as much a failure either, if the UN inspectors were used as a tool of information rather than an obstacle to US occupation, and definitely if the war was just to save the people.

 

[CptStern]

We did make a great case against his atrocities, they were well documented during the 90's. Actually, they were documented for 12 long years. What did the UN do? Pass resolution after resolution. Dont blame the US for ignoring the Iraqi people, blame the UN. They were the only organization that could have gone in and ended this mess 12 years ago.

this comes up over and over, in fact we just covered it the other day


facts:

US met with saddam days after the news broke that he had used chemical weapons on iranian troops. Do I have to link to that picture of rumsfeld shaking hands with saddm for the 50th time?

Iran pushed for a UN resolution charging saddam for crimes against humanity. The US vetoed the vote and so did it's allies, the resolution was defeated without backing

 

[seinfeldrules]

Yes, but you are taking it out of context. At that very time the US was far worse off with Iran than with Iraq. If you need to look up what Iran was doing to us at that time then feel free.

 

[CptStern]

iran was at war with iraq

 

[seinfeldrules]

No, I haven't seen those. Saddam used gas way back a long time ago, but nothing that I know of before the War. And if the US really had photographic evidence of a current WMD plan, one would evpect to see it every couple minutes on CNN.

http://www.genocidewatch.org/A Kurdish view for peace.htm

Like I said, you can call anything a slam dunk. What evidence is he calling a slam dunk?

He said that the WMD case against Saddam was a "Slam dunk". Meaning it was solid and quite easy to prove.

I can all but guarantee that you'd have more allies in the coalition if the US and UN worked together to fight Saddam.

I agree, but how much longer would we have waited? 12 years and all they did was pass resolutions. It is clear the UN cannot act as a military body anymore.

The WMD fiasco wouldn't be seen as as much a failure either, if the UN inspectors were used as a tool of information rather than an obstacle to US occupation, and definitely if the war was just to save the people.

To be fair the UN inspectors were only allowed into the country on the days preluding the war. They werent allowed in for much of the time before that. Even when they were in country they were restricted from certain sites.

The UN is in need of help. Everyone knows that. But Bush's disregard for it works against america as a symbolic snubbing of the entire world.

Well if the UN wasnt willing to help us beat Iraq then we have no alternative. America sticks up for America first, not the UN.

iran was at war with iraq

I said US - Iran relations.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

http://www.genocidewatch.org/A Kurdish view for peace.htm

First of all, there are no photos there.
Second, the events described happened in the late 80's. I mean current evidence.

Wasn't Saddam made to stop his weapons programs since then, like after the 1st Iraq war? Where's the evidence that he restarted production? Can you find some?

He said that the WMD case against Saddam was a "Slam dunk". Meaning it was solid and quite easy to prove.

Maybe you missed my point, so here it is in caps: quite easy to prove WITH WHAT EVIDENCE?
What was the evidence that he is refering to as a slam dunk? Was it a video? Was it a tape? What proof was so solid?

I agree, but how much longer would we have waited? 12 years and all they did was pass resolutions. It is clear the UN cannot act as a military body anymore.

I wonder if that has anything to do with the largest military on Earth leaving them to pursue it's own intrests.

To be fair the UN inspectors were only allowed into the country on the days preluding the war. They werent allowed in for much of the time before that. Even when they were in country they were restricted from certain sites.

They were rushed by a Bush-imposed time limit, if I remember.

And you'd think Bush would have wanted the inspectors to be there as long as possible, so that they could find the WMDs that were a "slam dunk" and make him a hero for bravely predicting their existence.

But no, he rushed them out. Don't ask me why.

Well if the UN wasnt willing to help us beat Iraq then we have no alternative. America sticks up for America first, not the UN.

The UN was trying to make sure the US's reasons for invading were justified. But the US disregarded them and hindered them.
Like I said, the US had only to gain from UN alliance. I can't understand why Bush would give that up.

And there's nothing wrong with sticking up for yourself. The problem comes when you are only concerned with yourself when you are engaging in military action with other countries and seeking allies in the fight.

If America sticks up for America, why the coalition?

Either those other countries were called in to make it look like the US had international support, or the US actually needed international support.

Apparently America sticks up for a America... with a little help from Britain and a dozen other countries. "With us or against us" implied that Bush wanted allies, and where better to find them than at the UN?

Since the vast majority of troops in Iraq are US, you'd think they'd be glad to have some support from elsewheres.
It's clear Bush needed international support, even if it was just to gain public approval.

 

[seinfeldrules]

First of all, there are no photos there.

*WARNING* DISTURBING PICTURES
http://www.kdp.pp.se/chemical.html

What was the evidence that he is refering to as a slam dunk? Was it a video? Was it a tape? What proof was so solid?

How should I know? I am not in the White House, nor the CIA. I dont know what Tenet felt was "slam dunk" evidence. Look to Powell's UN speech for what he probably felt was "slam dunk" evidence. Why should the President distrust his CIA Director when he claims there was "slam dunk" evidence. Tenet was named CIA Director under Bill Clinton, so its not like he was making stuff up for Bush.

I wonder if that has anything to do with the largest military on Earth leaving them to pursue it's own intrests.

What are you talking about? We helped in Bosnia and Somalia. Aren't Germany, France, Canada and all the other countries powerful enough to stick up for the UN and stop the massacre in Sudan while we are in Iraq? Combined their forces are much greater than that of the US.

They were rushed by a Bush-imposed time limit, if I remember.

And you'd think Bush would have wanted the inspectors to be there as long as possible, so that they could find the WMDs that were a "slam dunk" and make him a hero for bravely predicting their existence.

I am pretty sure that it was a UN set deadline, but I am unsure and I am sure you are as well. The inspectors had 12 years to be there, isnt that enough time? Maybe they could have made a decision after 15 or 20 more years.

If America sticks up for America, why the coalition?

Because the other countries in the coalition feel the US was justified to defend itself in Iraq and are willing to lend a helping hand. Friends help friends in need. We did the same for Europe regarding the USSR and Nazi Germany. Of course those are much bigger examples, but they prove the US is more than willing to help our allies when needed.

or the US actually needed international support.

Of course we did. I am greatful for the help from all the coalition partners. I'm sure the Iraqi people are as well.

"With us or against us" implied that Bush wanted allies, and where better to find them than at the UN?

That was regarding the War on Terror, not the war in Iraq. Look up the speech if you must.

 

[CptStern]

they knew saddam had wmd because they had the receipts to prove it :E

 

[Mechagodzilla]

*WARNING* DISTURBING PICTURES
http://www.kdp.pp.se/chemical.html

Still, youre missing my main point. Those gas attacks were from 1988. Afterwards, Saddam's WMD projects were shut down. Where is the evidence that they restarted?

How should I know?

There we go. My point in asking what a slam dunk was is that no-one has seen any airtight evidence. I can't find it. You can't find it.

What are you talking about? We helped in Bosnia and Somalia. Aren't Germany, France, Canada and all the other countries powerful enough to stick up for the UN and stop the massacre in Sudan while we are in Iraq? Combined their forces are much greater than that of the US.

I'm not familiar with those other countries, but Canada is staying out because most of our overseas troops are still stuck with the after-effects of Afghanistan. I oppose that very much, though. Sudan is much more important a military cause.

I am pretty sure that it was a UN set deadline, but I am unsure and I am sure you are as well. The inspectors had 12 years to be there, isnt that enough time? Maybe they could have made a decision after 15 or 20 more years.

I do distictly remember Bush being the cause, but I'll look this up to make sure that I'm not misremembering.

And you also must remember that the US and UN need not be seperate entities. The UN is comprised of various countries, each putting forth it's own aid and opinion. I'm sure that if the US was commited to it, they would have all the sway they'd need in the UN while also sharing power and responsibility

Because the other countries in the coalition feel the US was justified to defend itself in Iraq and are willing to lend a helping hand. Friends help friends in need. We did the same for Europe regarding the USSR and Nazi Germany. Of course those are much bigger examples, but they prove the US is more than willing to help our allies when needed.

[...]

Of course we did. I am greatful for the help from all the coalition partners. I'm sure the Iraqi people are as well.

Believe it or not, I actually agree with you here. Although the coalition could arguably be more the product of the the "not with us, against us" thing. Not to mention that being allied to the ultimate super power can't hurt diplomatically

That was regarding the War on Terror, not the war in Iraq. Look up the speech if you must.

Well, the reason for the Iraq war was to get rid of weapons that terrorists would use. Y'know, the WMDs? And the allegations of ties to Al Queda?

Sure, Iraq's not a WoT war anymore, since neither WMDs or Al-Queda ties were found, but it was started off as a part of the WoT.

 

[seinfeldrules]

Afterwards, Saddam's WMD projects were shut down. Where is the evidence that they restarted?

How? We didnt go into Iraq, just Kuwait.

There we go. My point in asking what a slam dunk was is that no-one has seen any airtight evidence. I can't find it. You can't find it.

We also dont have billions of dollars worth of equipment at our disposal.

And the allegations of ties to Al Queda?

This is really an unknown at the time. There are some ties that have popped up, but the media has ignored them for the most part.

I'm sure that if the US was commited to it, they would have all the sway they'd need in the UN while also sharing power and responsibility

I think the difference of opinion between us and countries like France and China will prevent the US from ever having the sway needed to win important votes. You can see the world starting to split into three corners. China on one side, Germany and France on one side, and GB and the US on the other.

Anyways, I am really tired right now so I'm making an early appointment with my bed. Its really been more enjoyable talking/debating with you since we both turned more civil.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

Here it is:
http://www.nmhschool.org/tthornton/mehistorydatabase/gulf_war_phase_two.htm

However, on September 16, Iraq took the world by surprise when it announced it intended to fully comply with U.N. resolutions, i.e. that it would allow U.N. weapons inspectors back in the country [...] The U.S. and Great Britain continued to prepare for war against Iraq arguing that Iraq's step was just one more stall tactic.

The article is rather complex, so I won't just quote it wholesale, but here's the simple version:

On November 27, U.N. weapons inspectors were on the job in Iraq and were to report back to the Security Council within 60 days.

On December 19, a week after Iraq had submitted a 12,000 page document declaring itself free of weapons of mass destruction, the United States announced it had evidence that Iraq stood in "material breach" of its commitments under U.N. Resolution 1441: meaning that, according to the U.S., Iraq lied in its declaration. Two days later, U.S. and Kuwaiti forces conducted exercises along the Iraq-Kuwait border.

So, Iraq was attacked by the US on December 21st before the UN was to be done inspecting around January 19th.

Looks like I remembered right.

The article also give a pretty good non-partisan look at the evidence of WMDs. There wasn't much.

Something else interesting I found, BTW:

Bush before 9/11 , talking about Saddam's WMDs in August of 2001:
"He's been a menace forever, and we will do -- he needs to open his country up for inspection, so we can see whether or not he's developing weapons of mass destruction."

Pentagon official Richard Perle in November 2001, after 9-11:
"He has weapons of mass destruction. The lesser risk is in pre-emption. We've got to stop wishing away the problem."

Shortly after September 11, 2001, the Bush administration (and Tony Blair, and several members of Congress) suddenly began telling everybody that Saddam Hussein definitely possessed weapons of mass destruction. Hmmm.

 

[seinfeldrules]

several members of Congress

Including John Kerry.

he needs to open his country up for inspection, so we can see whether or not he's developing weapons of mass destruction."

Wasnt that true? He didnt open his country up until the very last moment.

On November 27, U.N. weapons inspectors were on the job in Iraq and were to report back to the Security Council within 60 days

What year?

 

[Neutrino]

I am pretty sure that it was a UN set deadline, but I am unsure and I am sure you are as well. The inspectors had 12 years to be there, isnt that enough time? Maybe they could have made a decision after 15 or 20 more years.

The UN did in fact set several deadlines for Iraq at one time or another about him allowing inspectors into Iraq and also providing information on any weapons development he might be doing. However, near the time that the war started the UN still wanted to continue diplomatic means of getting Sadam to comply. They did not actually threaten Sadam with any deadlines. It was Bush who did that, just to clear that up.

However related to the subject at hand I find something kind of interesting. Much of Bush's justification for going into Iraq rested on the existence of WMD's in Iraq possession I'm sure you would agree. He even says so in a speech.

So here's some interesting information on and quotes from Bush:

Bush on Iraq:

We agree that the Iraqi dictator must not be permitted to threaten America and the world with horrible poisons and diseases and gases and atomic weapons. Since we all agree on this goal, the issues is : how can we best achieve it?

Many Americans have raised legitimate questions: about the nature of the threat; about the urgency of action -- why be concerned now; about the link between Iraq developing weapons of terror, and the wider war on terror. These are all issues we've discussed broadly and fully within my administration. And tonight, I want to share those discussions with you.

First, some ask why Iraq is different from other countries or regimes that also have terrible weapons. While there are many dangers in the world, the threat from Iraq stands alone -- because it gathers the most serious dangers of our age in one place. Iraq's weapons of mass destruction are controlled by a murderous tyrant who has already used chemical weapons to kill thousands of people. This same tyrant has tried to dominate the Middle East, has invaded and brutally occupied a small neighbor, has struck other nations without warning, and holds an unrelenting hostility toward the United States.

Mr Bush repeated his call for a UN-imposed deadline on the Baghdad government to comply with its demands within "days and weeks - not months and years".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2254705.stm

US President George W Bush has given the United Nations Security Council one more day to agree to a resolution demanding Iraq's immediate disarmament.

Mr Bush is expected to address the American people, possibly as early as Monday night, issuing a final ultimatum to Saddam Hussein.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2855461.stm

Saddam Hussein and his sons must leave Iraq within 48 hours. Their refusal to do so will result in military conflict, commenced at a time of our choosing.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030317-7.html

Bush on North Korea:

Well first lets look at some of the things in the above speech. He says we should go to Iraq because "Iraq's weapons of mass destruction are controlled by a murderous tyrant who has already used chemical weapons to kill thousands of people." and "This same tyrant has tried to dominate the Middle East, has invaded and brutally occupied a small neighbor," and "holds an unrelenting hostility toward the United States."

Let's take a look at North Korea:

"Weapons of mass destruction" - Check
"WMD's controlled by a dictator" - Check
"Tyrant...human rights violations" - Check
"Once tried to take over a neighbor counrty" -Check
"Hostility toward United States" -Check

So what does Bush have to say about North Korea?

In the Times interview, the president also discussed the issue of North Korea and Iran's nuclear ambitions, saying that he would not be rushed to set deadlines.

The newspaper said "Bush displayed none of the alarm about North Korea's growing arsenal that he once voiced regularly about Iraq."

I don't think you give timelines to dictators.

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle....FJKPUKCRBAELCFFA?type=topNews&storyID=6088301



Now I'm not saying that we should attack North Korea. Not at all. I'm just saying that I find it somewhat odd that Bush was so gung ho about attacking Iraq and almost eager to set deadlines for Sadam Hussein, when he now takes the complete opposite stance for North Korea and even contridicts himself about setting deadlines.

Before he set deadlines for Iraq, pushed the UN on the issue, and rushed to address the "threat" of Iraq. Today he maintains that none of this was a mistake and that we were justified in going to Iraq.

Now he says he "won't be rushed" and it's in fact wrong to give dictator deadlines. Plus we heard endless talk from him about the "threat" from Iraq while we now hear nearly nothing from him about North Korea. Seems strange to me.

How do you reconcile his past actions and statement about the threat of WMD's in the hands of dictator with his current position on the subject?

How can he keep saying those past actions were right when he now practically take the opposite position and still says he's right?

 

[Mechagodzilla]

How? We didnt go into Iraq, just Kuwait.

Well, that pesky UN of course!

They had been conducting weapons inspections of Iraq well into 1998, before they decided to stop.
Then, in 2002, Iraq volunteered to resume the inspections in order to convince the US not to attack.

We also dont have billions of dollars worth of equipment at our disposal.

By us not finding WMD evidence, I meant with google search of the news. Not actually going to iraq.

Just check a couple news websites there. the US didn't have much evidence at all, and all that was found by the UN were some old, empty shells with a range of 4 miles. Nowhere close to being able to hit the US.

Even the US admitted that those weren't good enough to be called the "smoking gun", the indisputable evidence of Iraq having a WMD program that they intended to find. Namely, they were looking for, and not finding, large stockpiles of chemicals.

This is really an unknown at the time. There are some ties that have popped up, but the media has ignored them for the most part.

Link? I've not heard this, and I watch CNN all the time.

I think the difference of opinion between us and countries like France and China will prevent the US from ever having the sway needed to win important votes. You can see the world starting to split into three corners. China on one side, Germany and France on one side, and GB and the US on the other.

I hate to sound like a broken record, but what brings countries together better than the UN? Spend money on the UN, and help France and Russia out every once and a while. Maybe listen to what they have to say about wars in Iraq and such. It certainly couldn't hurt. You might even end up pals like Britain is with you now.

And, suddenly, BAM! The UN is working again.
Give peace a chance!

Its really been more enjoyable talking/debating with you since we both turned more civil.

Dang, I didn't want to be more civil. I guess I'm just becoming better at arguing my points via practice or something. :O

 

[Mechagodzilla]

Including John Kerry.

Okay? My point is that there was a sudden shift from maybe to definitely after 9/11. I just though it was odd.

Wasnt that true? He didnt open his country up until the very last moment.

Yeah, but why the sudden shift from "Iraq might have WMDs" to "Iraq definitely has WMDs?" That's the point of the quote.
Plus, he had already been inspected for about a decade beforehand, before a 4-year beak.

On November 27, U.N. weapons inspectors were on the job in Iraq and were to report back to the Security Council within 60 days

What year?

2002, of course. I wouldn't make that sort of foul-up. It's described in-depth in the article.

Edit: Okay, Neutrino wins the thread. :O

 

[Neutrino]

And the allegations of ties to Al Queda?

This is really an unknown at the time. There are some ties that have popped up, but the media has ignored them for the most part.

What do you mean? Do you mean at the time of the war started? Because Bush used those alleged ties as part of his justification for War. Though they later were shown not to be true.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

Bush used those alleged ties as part of his justification for War. Though they later were shown not to be true.

I guess that solves the mystery of why the media stopped reporting the allegations of Al-Queda ties.

 

[Neutrino]

Edit: Okay, Neutrino wins the thread. :O

Yay, what do I win? A car? Money? A Hawaiin vacation I hope?

But actually I'm confused. Which post are you referring to? The Iraq/North Korea one? Everyone else has made just as good of points as I tried to make in there....and I'm sure it will all be argued against by someone else in here.

 

[hasan]

Sorry for spelling and grammatical errors, I just write my thoughts without tinking too much about puncuation .. then I figure the post is too big to go thru it and check the spelling and watnot.

may I skip 30 pages or so of discussion?

As a non-american, I find Kerry alot worse than bush when it comes to firegn policy ..
you know atleast bush is a little bit stupid, he can mess things up for himself sometimes, which is good because it causes big troubles for him and his plans.
If kerry was in charge, and IF he was smart, and had good plans for these wars .. maybe he'd be in syria now :O

and um, regarding the first ever question in this thread .. "why is there resistance against America, and where was it during Saddam's rule?"
hmm well, this require a couple of lectures about the Arab culture maybe .. but, lets look at a bigger picture:
-There is a military resistnce in Palestine against the Israeli occupation.
-There has NOT been many armed military movements gainst the rulers in the arab countries despite the fact that most of them are controlled by dictators and tyrants. except for a little while in egypt, algeria, and now saudi arabia; but these movements aren't so pupolar, most them repent/change thier mind after a while. They labelled as "terrorists" anyway, which is true in alot of cases.

You see, iraq now is under Foriegn Occupation, you don't know what nationalism is like in Arab world.
We don't have %50 percent or so who say "I support the troops by wanting to bring them home!!!", on the contrary, you get %80 percent or so who feel the fighters who die in battles with the occupation are honourable martyres. (and I'm one of those )

Under saddam it's a little bit different .. he's a local tyrant, well .. so um, think about it, if you were to organize resistance movements, what would things be like:
-you would attack police stations .. ? or um .. kill your own countrymen?
You're looking for a civil war or what?

Look at saudi arabia, Al-Qaeda is apparently starting to fight the "government", do you think the people there support thier actions?
There are some who do, and some who don't, but well, the case for fighting a local government in one country doesn't have that strong national emotion to it .. you know?
I think it's hard to explain, but in short: (I think this is the policy of the Muslim Brotherhood movement)
-to change the bad political/economic situation, you don't choose voilence; you try to change the society, the rulers will eventually have to compensate and chang thier policies, or something like that, but I think it's working, it even worked on Saddam a little bit.
In the 60's people were afraid to even go to the mousques, because you could be labelled "radical", taken to prison and turtoured.
In the 90's, the government itself was building new mousques.
-however, when it comes to the outside enemy trying to attack us, we must forget all of our differences/disagreements/hate, and unite against this enemy. Use all the means you've got, wether be it military, political, social, whatever .. anything and everything.

It's this culture that gave birth to what's known today as the Iraqi Resitance.

I hope that made some sense.

 

[Neutrino]

Edit: I've adopted a new debating technique. Just write really, really long posts in order to put the opposition to sleep before they are able to finish reading them. Heh, but seriously I didn't intend for it to get so out of hand, but once I started digging through stuff it was necessary for everything I wanted to include. Sorry about that.

I guess that solves the mystery of why the media stopped reporting the allegations of Al-Queda ties.

I feel that I should clarify that a bit. I may have oversimplified that too much when it deserves a more fair inspection because it is a somewhat muddled issue that is debated by both sides. Also, even more confusion is added in by many of the things the Bush adminstration said. Many times they stopped short of technically saying something but implied it none the less. Anyway, here goes:

Here is what Bush and the administration had to say about Iraq and Al Qaida.

Bush on Iraq and Al Qaida/Terrorism:

President Bush Outlines Iraqi Threat http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html

We also must never forget the most vivid events of recent history. On September the 11th, 2001, America felt its vulnerability -- even to threats that gather on the other side of the earth.

We know that Iraq and the al Qaeda terrorist network share a common enemy -- the United States of America. We know that Iraq and al Qaeda have had high-level contacts that go back a decade. Some al Qaeda leaders who fled Afghanistan went to Iraq. These include one very senior al Qaeda leader who received medical treatment in Baghdad this year, and who has been associated with planning for chemical and biological attacks. We've learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases. And we know that after September the 11th, Saddam Hussein's regime gleefully celebrated the terrorist attacks on America.

Alliance with terrorists could allow the Iraqi regime to attack America without leaving any fingerprints.

Some have argued that confronting the threat from Iraq could detract from the war against terror. To the contrary; confronting the threat posed by Iraq is crucial to winning the war on terror.

Saddam Hussein is harboring terrorists and the instruments of terror, the instruments of mass death and destruction.

We've experienced the horror of September the 11th. We have seen that those who hate America are willing to crash airplanes into buildings full of innocent people. Our enemies would be no less willing, in fact, they would be eager, to use biological or chemical, or a nuclear weapon.

President Bush's Speech To The United Nations September 12, 2002
http://www.bushcountry.org/bush_speeches/president-bush-speech-091302.htm

With every step the Iraqi regime takes toward gaining and deploying the most terrible weapons, our own options to confront that regime will narrow. And if an emboldened regime were to supply these weapons to terrorist allies, then the attacks of September 11th would be a prelude to far greater horrors.

October 14, 2002
http://www.tampatrib.com/News/MGBOSLGTLVD.html
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0923-06.htm

This is a man [Saddam] that we know has had connections with al-Qaida. This is a man who, in my judgment, would like to use al-Qaida as a forward army.

President Bush's State of the Union January 28, 2003
http://www.bushcountry.org/bush_speeches/n_012903_president-bush-state-union.htm

And this Congress and the American people must recognize another threat. Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of Al Qaida. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own.

Take it as you will. I realize that technically he never said Iraq had ties to 9/11. But to me many of the things he said sure did imply it. Not to mention the fact that 9/11 is what started the whole "War on Terror" in the first place and Bush was justifying the war on Iraq a part of that War on Terror. But he did specify the dangerous ties between Iraq and Al Qaida quite clearly.

Now here is what the non-partisan 9/11 commission had to say on the subject:

The 9/11 Commission on Iraq and Al Qaida/Terrorism

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5223932/

The commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks reported Wednesday that Osama bin Laden met with a top Iraqi official in 1994 but found “no credible evidence” of a link between Iraq and al-Qaida in attacks against the United States.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47812-2004Jun16.html

The Sept. 11 commission reported yesterday that it has found no "collaborative relationship" between Iraq and al Qaeda, challenging one of the Bush administration's main justifications for the war in Iraq.

Cheney said evidence of a link was "overwhelming." But the report of the commission's staff, based on its access to all relevant classified information, said that there had been contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda but no cooperation. In yesterday's hearing of the panel, formally known as the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, a senior FBI official and a senior CIA analyst concurred with the finding.

"We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States."

That's what I meant by my earlier, much shorter statement on the subject. You can take it as you will, but to me it demonstrates that the Bush adminstration greatly exagerated the link between Iraq and Al Qaida and directly implied a link between Iraq and 9/11, I can only assume in an effort to justify the war.

In fact I think the statements made by Bush and the adminstartion certainly had their desired effect on the public opinion. Let's look:

http://atheism.about.com/gi/dynamic....chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/nation/2524813

A new poll shows that 57 percent of Americans continue to believe that Saddam Hussein gave "substantial support" to al-Qaida terrorists before the war with Iraq, despite a lack of evidence of that relationship.

Also, 45 percent of Americans have the impression that "clear evidence" was found that Iraq worked closely with Osama bin Laden's network, and a majority believe that before the war Iraq either had weapons of mass destruction (38 percent) or a major program for developing them (22 percent).

There's no known evidence to date that these statements are true.

U.S. weapons inspector David Kay testified before Congress in January that no weapons were found and prewar intelligence on Iraq was "almost all wrong." CIA Director George Tenet last month rejected assertions by Vice President Dick Cheney that Iraq had cooperated with al-Qaida.

Despite that record, many Americans continue to believe that the threat from Iraqi weapons and its alleged links to terrorism justified the war. That conviction correlates closely with support for the war and President Bush, the poll released Thursday found.

One last point I wanted to make. I started this off with a speech by Bush outlining the Iraqi threat before the war. This speech was made on October 7th, 2002.

This is the speech where he outlines the dangerous Iraqi threat to the United States and uses this threat to justify a war against Sadam and the Iraqi nation. He never retracted these claims and continued to speak about the imminent Iraqi threat as I'm sure you all will remember.

Keeping that in mind let's look at what else happened on October 7th, 2002. It seems that the CIA sent a letter to the chairman of the Intelligence Committee in the Senate.

The CIA on the Iraqi threat:

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/10/09/i...tml?ex=1094443200&en=59607b05fec98b9f&ei=5070

Following is the text of a letter dated Oct. 7 to Senator Bob Graham, Florida Democrat and chairman of the Intelligence Committee, by George J. Tenet, director of central intelligence, about decisions to declassify material related to the debate about Iraq:

...Baghdad for now appears to be drawing a line short of conducting terrorist attacks with conventional or C.B.W. against the United States....

...Should Saddam conclude that a U.S.-led attack could no longer be deterred, he probably would become much less constrained in adopting terrorist actions. Such terrorism might involve conventional means, as with Iraq's unsuccessful attempt at a terrorist offensive in 1991, or C.B.W...

...Saddam might decide that the extreme step of assisting Islamist terrorists in conducting a W.M.D. attack against the United States would be his last chance to exact vengeance by taking a large number of victims with him....

...Senator Levin: . . . If (Saddam) didn't feel threatened, did not feel threatened, is it likely that he would initiate an attack using a weapon of mass destruction?

Senior Intelligence Witness: . . . My judgment would be that the probability of him initiating an attack — let me put a time frame on it — in the foreseeable future, given the conditions we understand now, the likelihood I think would be low....

Now please don't misunderstand me here. I'm not saying that this letter automatically invalidates all of the concerns about Iraq. Though I'm sure some might make such a case. However, I won't try to do so right now.

But, what it definitely does show is that things weren't quite as neat and tidy as Bush would have us believe by listening to his speeches. Whenever he spoke that day about Iraq and terrorism and in days following he never showed any doubt about this "threat" and continued to speak of it as an obvious fact. After all he was using this "threat" as justification for military action and a war. You would think that it must be a sure thing then right? I mean it had to be known fact if you were going to commit the US military to invading Iraq.

But judging from a letter sent by the director of central intelligence to the senate it would appear that things were not quite so cut and dried as the version of things the public got to hear.

Some food for thought.

 

[Sparta]

To you non-Americans. Specifically targeted to the likes of Mechagodzilla, CptStern and others.

What do you think of the democratic canididate John Kerry? Do you think he will do a better job than Bush? This is an earnest question. Do you think that America will benefit from a face change or do you think that the US's foreign policy will magically change if Kerry becomes president? Or you do not know?

I'm curious since it seems most people outside the US hate Bush.

On a related issue, which is more important. Domestic issues (like taxes, health care issues, economic issues, and etc.) or foreign policy (like military intervention, trade and tariffs, diplomatic relations, etc.)?

I repeat - This isn't an attack on anybody. It is an honest question.

I have absolutely no idea if Kerry would be better then Bush. I've heard bad things about both of them (Mostly Bush)