We traded a stable but brutal dictator for an unstable democracy in the midst of a civil war over religion. Yea us!

The war in Iraq has caused more death and devastation than years of continued ruled under Saddam ever would have. It’s created *more* terrorists, not less, acting as a lightening rod for extremism. As for the WMD claim, it’s been pointed out many times that intelligence agencies already knew that Saddam likely didn’t have the capability the US administration claimed, so they cherry-picked results and massaged the intel until it fit what the hawks wanted.

So, to answer your questions:

“Finding WMD’s would have been worth fighting in Iraq, right? ”

Nope. The weapons inspectors could have done that. War would have only been necessary had Saddam been in imminent threat, and it was fairly understood, even at the time, that he wasn’t (despite Powell’s dog and pony show at the UN).

“Saving thousands of people from being murdered by their own government, is that worth fighting in Iraq?”

If that’s was being done, sure. But it’s not. We’ve simply traded a dictator for anarchy. I wouldn’t call that a victory. Besides, if you really want to go to war on those grounds, there are *far* better choices (Rwanda seems like a good start).

“But I do support the War in Iraq based on the facts that we are helping the people of Iraq and we are actively finding and defeating the terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan.”

I find it pretty hilarious you talk of “facts”, and then assert that we’re “helping the people of Iraq”. Something tells me the people on the ground dying from car bombs and cholera would disagree.

And I find it particularly offensive that you claim the US is helping in Afghanistan, a front they’ve all but abandoned, while their allies, such as Canada, have been forced to pick up where they left off.

cafeenman said:

> Use Google. It’s very helpful. 2 minutes of your time will provide all the information you need.

While I agree with your arguments, I have to disagree with this directive. If it is so easy to dig up with google, then why don’t you dig it up and post it, so it’s explicitly layed out for all to see? Give us some links to what you think. It’s only fair.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

the reason why is because it’s like trying to educate flat-earthers. No amount of evidence is going to convince them. I have more than enough experience talking to people about this that I know going and getting the information for them is a waste of my time.

But because it hadn’t been said – at least I didn’t see it – I just wanted to make it clear that not everyone thought Iraq had wmds. That’s just one rationalization freepers who now realize they were wrong but still can’t take responsibility for it try to buy some credibility.

If people want to know the truth they already know. All of this has been documented extensively for years.

As pointed out in the BA’s “quotes”, evil men can only survive because good men allow them too…”

Makes me think of something I read many years back. I apologized, I don’t remember the source, but I remember the message :

“Any person who is devious enough as to be able to manipulate the system in such a way that they can get themselves elected to the highest positions should in no way be allowed to reach such levels of power.”

And Bush lies and twists more “facts” tonight, so that more of our military will die or be maimed or mentally traumatized.

Disgusting.

Steve
Combat Veteran

Finish that line….

“The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse.”

Finding WMD’s would have been worth fighting in Iraq, right? Saving thousands of people from being murdered by their own government, is that worth fighting in Iraq?
I never said I supported Bush, and you won’t hear me say it…ever. As I don’t trust any politician, I full well expect that this administration has lied on numerous occasions, same as every administration before.
But I do support the War in Iraq based on the facts that we are helping the people of Iraq and we are actively finding and defeating the terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan.

> Use Google. It’s very helpful. 2 minutes of your time will provide all the information you need.

While I agree with your arguments, I have to disagree with this directive. If it is so easy to dig up with google, then why don’t you dig it up and post it, so it’s explicitly layed out for all to see? Give us some links to what you think. It’s only fair.

It’s a monologue from a movie, and without the context of the original meaning of the words, it’s all rather pointless.

Of course, if these words have their literal meaning for you, I just want to point out that they are a monologue from a movie and once you deconstruct the context in which the character is saying it, it’s just about the opposite of the literal meaning.

Is that clear enough?

So, are you saying that Bush is evil? I sure hope not. You are blessed to a government that is busy trying to keep you safe from future terrorists!

# DennyMoon 12 Sep 2007 at 1:02 pm

“Caffeenman, I won’t address your silly and demeaning generalizations.”

I was pretty specific. What generalizations? What makes anything I said, “silly”?

“(I’m pretty sure I’m not a “winger”, by the way…)”

I don’t care.

“But your math sure is funny, where’d you get that “8 years” from?”

This is on the order of calculating the rate at which the universe is expanding but I’ll over-simplify it for your sake:

2003 (the year we invaded Iraq) minus 1995 (the mid-1990′s you referenced) = 8.

“Saddam’s cat-n-mouse games with the inspectors and international community continued until shortly before the invasion. It wasn’t until the invasion was imminent that his government began back pedaling, and by then it was pretty much too late.”

Yeah, he acted like a lot of national leaders do – an immature petulant brat. But it wasn’t too late, right? I mean the weapons inspectors he finally let in said there was no evidence of any wmds which was well before Bush put everyone on ships and planes along with ill-suited equipment and sent them over. It would have been really easy to stop.

Watch how this works:

GWB: (picks up phone to call pentagon). Call off the invasion. We haven’t proven a case for war.

Pentagon: WTF???? It’s too late now!!!!! Look! Our soldiers are home kissing their wives and kids goodbye and everything! It can’t be stopped! You fool! You have doomed us all!!!!!!!

GWB: You’re fired dumbass. The invasion is off.

See? Simple!

“Pray tell, how did you “know” that Saddam had no WMDs?”

Well, there are people who are respectable and credible and people who aren’t. Bush has a history of failure. Nobody can name anything he’s done that’s made anything better ever. He was trying to push us into war. You know what war is, right? One of the most horrific things people can do to each other.

Then there were A LOT of people who are credible who said that wmds didn’t exist. In fact, there were more of these voices within and outside the US than there were who backed Bush’s claims.

So yes, I wasn’t an inspector and I can’t “prove” there were no wmds but there was enough evidence, such as evidence that the earth orbits the sun, that I can say I knew just as I can say I know the earth orbits the sun even though I can’t stand on the sun and watch it happen.

“Why didn’t they argue more strongly against the evidence when Sec. Powell went to the UN?”

Ummm… there were a lot of people arguing against the case for war.

My question to you (I think I asked this before) is why were they and I right and you wrong and still trying to justify being wrong? Why don’t you just take responsibility for your failure to get your facts straight instead of trying to rationalize it by saying “everyone thought the same thing I did”?

Everybody didn’t think what you thought which is my whole point. A lot of people spoke up and were ignored. People in Bush’s administration spoke up and he fired them. He didn’t want any of those darn facts to mess up the legacy he was eager to create.

So all I’d like to know from you is why you personally didn’t know that Saddam didn’t have wmds.

“War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.”

John Stuart Mill
English economist & philosopher (1806 – 1873)

“Caffeenman, I won’t address your silly and demeaning generalizations. (I’m pretty sure I’m not a “winger”, by the way…) But your math sure is funny, where’d you get that “8 years” from? Saddam’s cat-n-mouse games with the inspectors and international community continued until shortly before the invasion. It wasn’t until the invasion was imminent that his government began back pedaling, and by then it was pretty much too late.”

* years = 2003 (when we invaded) minus 1995 (mid 1990′s by your citation). Sorry the math is above your head. Try a cheap calculator. For $5.00 you can have these sort of answers at your finger tips.

“Pray tell, how did you “know” that Saddam had no WMDs? Were you a member of the inspection teams? Did you have access to intelligence reports? If “everyone else knew”, why didn’t they argue more strongly against the evidence when Sec. Powell went to the UN? I recall France speaking up, but it was never to say, “No, he doesn’t have WMDs!” Their argument was, “Even if he does, war is not the answer.” While that is a valid debate, it’s not refutation of the question.”

I knew because I don’t waste my time watching Fox news. I use news sources from around the world and almost without exception (the exceptions being US puppets) cited sources and evidence that Saddam had no WMDs. Secretary Powell has stated he had mis-givings about the briefing he gave the UN. If you don’t know all this then you are willfully ignorant. It’s documented all over the internet.

Use Google. It’s very helpful. 2 minutes of your time will provide all the information you need. But you know already. There’s no way you can’t know. Claiming I’m “ranting” doesn’t change the truth and the truth is Saddam didn’t have wmds. The truth is I knew that.

Why were you wrong? That’s the question.

“Without the gift of retrospect, how do you determine if “now” is or isn’t the right time to scale up? Bin Laden had demonstrated you didn’t have to be a “traditional” military power to reach out and hit us hard, claiming Saddam was no threat to the US is wishful thinking.”

Saddam was no threat to the US was a fact at the time. Wishful thinking is you trying to rationalize why you were wrong because “it’s what everybody thought.”

I guess getting your facts straight before unleashing hell on people isn’t very important in your world.

The war against Iraq is a war of aggression and is not part of what our constitution allows. Iraq did not pose any threat to the U.S. We pushed them back in 1991 and would do it repeatedly if needed.

The loss of The Writ of Habeaus Corpus IS lost liberty. Dumbass.

I agree to the fact also that all the government is in on it. My Senator Feinstein is complicit with Bush and should be prosecuted along with the rest of them.

200 years of good will that the U.S. built and it is gone in 6 years. It was generally agreed that having nuclear weapons was not to be tolerated BUT that the U.S. had such weapons was considered to be an acceptable arrangement. It was accepted because there was an abhorence for the destructive power of such weapons and it was considered reasonable that the U.S. would never use one except as a last act. Those days ended also and we hear that no options are off the table even nuclear. The mentally ill have taken over and we all suffer.

George Bush said GOD told him to go into Iraq. I guess God was wrong. But that is to be expected from a sissy wanker.

38″You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ 39But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. 41If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. 42Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.
43″You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that?

So far I’ve not had a reasoned response.

> As a Brit I commend Phil on his courage to speak out,

Courage? What risk is he bravely facing down?
Even the yak about lost “liberty” convinently omits specifics.

I call bull. You posted that quote without any qualifiers or discussion. What possible reason could you have for posting that quote, other than advocating the message of the quote? The standard assumption is that a person advocates the message of the quote, unless they explicitly state otherwise. Don’t blame Cybergoose because you were unclear about your intentions.

What??? said:
> It’s a public building (public in that anyone can go in, not public in that it’s owned by the local government)…

No, it’s not a public building, it is a private building. It is owned by private citizens or groups, not by the community (city, town, county, etc) as a whole.

> why *CAN’T* they have poling stations there. Are you afraid that the clergy that use that church would change the votes?

If the people running the vote are trained and obeying polling laws, then the clergy shouldn’t have access to change the votes. The problem is one of endorsement. Placing the polling place in a church gives the impression that that church has a preferential position to the government. It creates an endorsement of that religion by the government, which is forbidden by the First Amendment.

Consider the difficulties of placing that polling place in a Catholic church, then telling a devout Muslim to go there to vote. Or place it in a Mosque, and tell a Jew to have to vote there. Or place it in a Mormon church, then tell a Baptist that is their polling place. It is inappropriate.

It’s no wonder that no one cared that a poling station was being held in a church… even the ACLU. Which actually kind of suprises me.

I gave no other context or indication of my view. And yet you can tell all those things about me. What evidence do you have? This is a skeptics blog. Your statements about what I was trying to do have no basis in reality. They are purely conjecture on your part. You have no evidence to support you statement. I am therefore skeptical of anything that you write or communicate.

That’s the context of that monologue, so what you intended to be serious actually comes off as hilarious, because you just proved the point of Phil’s blog post without even meaning to.

If you think a soldier is right to rationalize the murder of one of their own in such a way, you have problems bigger than this blog. If you think that it’s ok that military leaders are not accountable by law, then you must not believe in the checks and balances built into our government by the constitution.

Those checks and balances were designed to protect us from such megalomaniacs.