Invasion of Iraq is now officially pointless

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-01-09 05:23pm

Liberventionist? You've been reading too much LRC.

Hamel · Post by **Hamel** » 2004-01-09 05:32pm

Joe wrote:Liberventionist? You've been reading too much LRC.

It fits perfectly

Post by **Vympel** » 2004-01-09 11:05pm

And theski, I don't give a shit how many democrats said similar shit about Iraq- the fact is, they didn't go to war based on it. Dubya did. If the Democrats had gone to war based on it, I'd be just as fucking annoyed- or need I remind everyone that pointing out that democrats said (rather than did) the same thing as Republicans means jack shit in refuting the criticisms?

theski · Post by **theski** » 2004-01-09 11:14pm

Vympel:

And theski, I don't give a shit how many democrats said similar shit about Iraq- the fact is, they didn't go to war based on it. Dubya did. If the Democrats had gone to war based on it, I'd be just as fucking annoyed- or need I remind everyone that pointing out that democrats said (rather than did) the same thing as Republicans means jack shit in refuting the criticisms?

My point was that everyone has been basicly on the WMD thing since 97 and it seems to have been bad intelligence given to both Admins... (Clinton and Bush) The blame lies at the feet of both the CIA and British Intel.... and I think that heads need to roll at both places.. The CIA needs to get burned to ground and started over... IMHO. Bush acted on this and Clinton lobbed a few missles but bad intell was the cause in both...

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-01-09 11:16pm

Vympel wrote:And theski, I don't give a shit how many democrats said similar shit about Iraq- the fact is, they didn't go to war based on it. Dubya did. If the Democrats had gone to war based on it, I'd be just as fucking annoyed- or need I remind everyone that pointing out that democrats said (rather than did) the same thing as Republicans means jack shit in refuting the criticisms?

A good deal of them did go to war over it, actually, or at w Except for John F. Kerry, of course, for whom voting in favor of war is actually a principled display of opposition to war.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-01-09 11:22pm

Good lord, how do I make these errors? "w" should be "least voted for it."

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-01-10 12:02am

theski wrote:My point was that everyone has been basicly on the WMD thing since 97 and it seems to have been bad intelligence given to both Admins... (Clinton and Bush) The blame lies at the feet of both the CIA and British Intel.... and I think that heads need to roll at both places.. The CIA needs to get burned to ground and started over... IMHO. Bush acted on this and Clinton lobbed a few missles but bad intell was the cause in both...

People have been grumbling about Saddam possibly having WMD for a long time, but not until the Bush Administration did this become such a certainty that they would cite it as a clear and present danger and then march off to war over it.

The Cleric · Post by **The Cleric** » 2004-01-10 12:47am

The Bush administration also had to deal with a messaive terrorist attack. That tends to accelerate threat identification past the point of certainty and into the realm of suspicion. I support the war based on the fact that he was a ruthless dicator, and we need more wars like that.

Lord Poe · Post by **Lord Poe** » 2004-01-10 12:50am

Who knows, the WMD might be back in Syria. http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld ... -headlines

BTW, the democrats didn't go to war over WMD because we didn't have a 9-11 on our watch. If 9-11 never happened, Bush would have had an unremarkable one-term presidency.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-01-10 12:54am

Lord Poe wrote:Who knows, the WMD might be back in Syria. http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld ... -headlines

BTW, the democrats didn't go to war over WMD because we didn't have a 9-11 on our watch. If 9-11 never happened, Bush would have had an unremarkable one-term presidency.

Questionable. If 9-11 hadn't happened we'd have a completely different political climate in America, and the recession probably wouldn't have been as severe.

Sarevok · Post by **Sarevok** » 2004-01-10 01:17am

Durandal wrote:
evilcat4000 wrote:Seriously that is what has been happening today. Despite having the most advanced technologies the US military is losing the war. American soldiers dying everyday in Iraq and terrorists elsewhere continue with small time destructive acts. And most importantly OBL has succeded in destroying Americas image as the land of liberty, justice and freedom.
So the presence of a resistance movement which occasionally hits the occupation forces means that we're losing the war?

The Iraqis dont like Americans so they want them out of their country. So how has the Americans realy won if the people they supposedly liberated hates them ? The resistence movement is viewed by many around the world as freedom fighters not terrorists. No amount of propoganda by the US govermant has changed that. The Americans are viewed as an agressor in an unjust war.

The Cleric · Post by **The Cleric** » 2004-01-10 01:21am

evilcat4000 wrote:The Iraqis dont like Americans so they want them out of their country. So how has the Americans realy won if the people they supposedly liberated hates them ? The resistence movement is viewed by many around the world as freedom fighters not terrorists. No amount of propoganda by the US govermant has changed that. The Americans are viewed as an agressor in an unjust war.

Ummm... most Iraquis simply want the US out of their country. They don't heate us, just have a weird thing about not liking to be occupied.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-01-10 01:27am

Most Iraqis certainly don't want us gone yet. That doesn't mean they necessarily like us, just that they realize our presence is probably a good thing for the time being.

Sarevok · Post by **Sarevok** » 2004-01-10 01:34am

StormTrooperTR889 wrote:
evilcat4000 wrote:The Iraqis dont like Americans so they want them out of their country. So how has the Americans realy won if the people they supposedly liberated hates them ? The resistence movement is viewed by many around the world as freedom fighters not terrorists. No amount of propoganda by the US govermant has changed that. The Americans are viewed as an agressor in an unjust war.
Ummm... most Iraquis simply want the US out of their country. They don't heate us, just have a weird thing about not liking to be occupied.

I did mention in the previous post that the it is the US foreign policy not American people that is disliked. Now Americans here mean American soldiers since almost every American in Iraq today is a military personnel.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-01-10 01:36am

Lord Poe wrote:Who knows, the WMD might be back in Syria. http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld ... -headlines

Doubtful. If this war has shown one thing very clearly, it's that the people in that area have the technical competence of hamsters.

BTW, the democrats didn't go to war over WMD because we didn't have a 9-11 on our watch. If 9-11 never happened, Bush would have had an unremarkable one-term presidency.

I'll second that. He would have been known more for his religious fanaticism and close ties to corporate malefactors than anything else, and he would have been drummed out. And the lingering stain of his "mandate of the technicality, not the people" election would have lasted much longer.

Enforcer Talen · Post by **Enforcer Talen** » 2004-01-10 02:19am

you know, I was for the war as I dislike tyrants, but that is beginning to balance less as times go on. Im being told that the war in iraq could have paid for world hunger (iirc) and going from oil based to hydrogen.

http://www.betterhumans.com/Features/Co ... 03-03-23-2

Im going to have to ponder this, because it influences my imperialist bent Ive had for the last year.

Iceberg · Post by **Iceberg** » 2004-01-10 02:23am

Enforcer Talen wrote:you know, I was for the war as I dislike tyrants, but that is beginning to balance less as times go on. Im being told that the war in iraq could have paid for world hunger (iirc) and going from oil based to hydrogen.

http://www.betterhumans.com/Features/Co ... 03-03-23-2

Im going to have to ponder this, because it influences my imperialist bent Ive had for the last year.

Oh boy, transhumanists. >.< Transhumanists tend to be over-optimistic in the extreme when it comes to this kind of thing; I'd wait until I got a second opinion here.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-01-10 02:24am

Oh, you're joking. I was all ready to knee-jerk an idiotic response. Damn, where the hell did you dig that piece of shit up?

Enforcer Talen · Post by **Enforcer Talen** » 2004-01-10 02:27am

-highly amused- I didnt know transhumanists had a reputation.

Iceberg · Post by **Iceberg** » 2004-01-10 02:28am

Enforcer Talen wrote:-highly amused- I didnt know transhumanists had a reputation.

They're kind of the bastard children of hard-SF fans and Scientologists (only without the super-wacky Galactic Overlord Xenu stuff).

Sarevok · Post by **Sarevok** » 2004-01-10 02:29am

Transhumanists live in a fantasy world where everything is perfect.

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2004-01-10 04:02am

StormTrooperTR889 wrote:Ummm... most Iraquis simply want the US out of their country. They don't heate us, just have a weird thing about not liking to be occupied.

Actually, that's not true. The best data shows that about 75% of Iraqis believe that the US presence is either "necessary" or "positive," at least for the time being. Only about 15% of Iraqis want US troops out of Iraq immediately.

Post by **The Yosemite Bear** » 2004-01-10 04:20am

surrender or we will export straight to middle east video: Gigli II and Bad Boys III

Post by **Vympel** » 2004-01-10 08:18am

Rice: No evidence Iraq moved WMD to Syria

jegs2 · Post by **jegs2** » 2004-01-10 06:54pm

Vympel wrote:Rice: No evidence Iraq moved WMD to Syria

Didn't Coalition forces find buried MIG fighter jets in the sand a while back? Apparently, those birds were detected by no national-level collection assets, and they were stumbled upon after a sandstorm partially uncovered them. Seems to me that if the bad guys could hide a few fighter jets, then they'd likely not have much trouble burying WMD stockpiles in remote parts of the desert either (along with any 'talkative types' that might have known about it). I think we will eventually find some of that stuff, but it may be many years down the road when they are stumbled on, perhaps during construction digging...