I'm No Longer Pessimistic On Obama; I Think He's An Idiot.

[Rani]

clibinarius, you're getting a bit too sensitive on the subject there buddy...

I didn't say "fuck the world".... I ask why do we have to police the world?... We're not NATO...we're not the UN... Those governing bodies were created for the policing and offering of aid in the world.

I understand that the US has a long standing agreement with Poland that we have their backs... But at the same time, I think this situation is more of a coincidence than anything... Although Scotty, along with reuters, would rather have us believe that it is because of a lobby or because it helps pay down a debt of some sort...

Besides, its not like the missile system won't be built, its just being revised

There's something else to be said on the subject of policing the world...... The reason freedom is so valued here in the States is because we earned it, worked for it, died for it. It would have much less value if that hadn't been the case. I'm not saying revolution and the death of thousands or millions would ever be a positive thing, but it's something that may at times be necessary for future generations to cherish and guard what they've earned. In every single country liberated by outside influences, those freedoms have not lasted more than a generation or two at the most. What's more death is inevitable. Everything that lives must die. In the attitude that death is the great enemy to be avoided at all cost we often sacrifice other values simply to avoid death. While the Halocaust was a horrible thing, you can't argue that Israel and the Jewish people aren't stronger for it. Never again is the promise they've made to themselves and future generations. Yet until the Halocaust happened most Jewish settlements were helpless victims of their governments actions. Again, I would never support aggressive action against any group, but I truthfully believe every victimized group must fight those battles for themselves for them to have any real and lasting value. And I say that even as Native American whose heritage was wiped out and nullified almost entirely by the winning Western Europeans. They won, we surrendered and went meekly onto reservations when in truth there was what is now Canada, Mexico, South America right there to just walk into hunting along the way. My ancestors could have left, gone into hiding and fought through attrition, but they did none of that. Therefore I reason that my ancestors earned the fate they received. And had they been saved at the last minute by some outside force, they wouldn't have treasured it.

The most I believe any outside influence should do is even the odds. If the government forces have rockets, give the rebels rockets and then step back and let them work it out for themselves. It's the only way it's going to last and mean anything to future generations.

'Rani

[clibinarius]

My ancestors could have left, gone into hiding and fought through attrition, but they did none of that. Therefore I reason that my ancestors earned the fate they received. And had they been saved at the last minute by some outside force, they wouldn't have treasured it.
'Rani

In my case, I don't believe I am stronger because I am missing large amounts of relatives thanks to the holocaust. I view myself as wounded, I view my culture as mostly lost (who speaks Yiddish anymore?) and the ancestral homelands utterly colonized such as Galicia by peoples who were displaced by the Soviets to repopulate the areas. I don't have a longing to return to Europe to correct that historical crime, however, beyond preventing it from happening again. I do not even blame so much the locals who committed the crime due to the fact the children didn't do it. If nothing else, I view myself as injured by the whole thing; its a painful thing to think about. There's no benefit in the murder of relatives you've never met. To think it happens other places doesn't comfort me, rather, I find it to be incredibly depressing. In Europe, Poland was once a great kingdom which offered protection to those who sought refuge from nearly anywhere in Europe; that kingdom was exterminated partially because its policies and laws proved to make the kingdom impotent, but also because the Russians and Germans decided to exterminate it when they got the upper hand. I mean, I'd honestly like to think there's some way I got stronger off my lineage, that what doesn't kill you makes you stronger, but I don't see that. Today there's fewer of my family than there was 100 years ago, and if Jews are a coherent people, there's fewer Jews today than 100 years ago. It'd be nice to see this as a sign of personal strength, but I do not. Rather, it just is, so I'd honestly like to forget as much of it as possible, while hoping it never happens again to others. Inevitably, it does, but that doesn't mean it should not be fought whenever possible.

In the case of the Baltic and Eastern European peoples, I believe we do treasure the opportunity given to us by the USA.

Tiny:

The timing matters because it is just a coincidence, I don't think it was intentional. But the day is essentially no different in Polish history than September 11th is to us. If a power decided to give Iran weapons and it was announced September 11, that would be the same thing to us. Its a lack of caring about the sensitivity of others.

For the Poles, its as if the system won't be built. They wanted it in their country, and that's what we agreed to. If its a "better system" or what not, it fails to give Poland an important concession we made: That we will go to war to defend Poland. This new system no longer comes with that guarantee.

[ilikemyusername]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1MSN82jU3sg
its the perfect wrapup to this sometimes ridiculous conversation if you substitute Axel Rose for Obama and the woman he refers to is the USA.

[Sonthert]

What was Bush wrong about? Did you actually ask that question? WMDs in Iraq when the UN inspectors had already given Iraq several clean reports. So we're in Iraq based on Bush's mistakes...There is every indication that he was looking for any reason to go to into Iraq (dating back to January 20, 2001) and he used the grief and trauma of 9/11/09 as a political springboard to further his agenda of invading Iraq. Thats one example. Wrong on many levels.

The problem isn't with Democrats or Republicans...its what the two of them jointly have turned the government into. The lack of transparency is the government rankling more power from the people. They won't give up that voluntarily.

I was listening to some radio station and they were talking about the other Arab leaders' reaction to Hillary Clinton's glaring error in stating US position. She told Arab leaders that the US would protect them from Iran's nuclear weapons. They said they didn;t want the US involving themselves in their countries...they wanted the US to stop IRan from developing them in the first place. This is the ultimate story here. The US wants an evil-axis country to use to involve themselves in Middle East politics...they WANT Iran to develop nuclear weapons and expect them to. The rest of the Arab world looks at Iran as a brother Islamic country and just want them flagged for illegal procedure or get them to stop nuclear weapons. Obama was quick to leave Clinton swinging by herself in the wind on that one and almost flat out said she wasn't voicing the opinions of the administration. To whit, Obama goes ahead and plans for Iran to have nuclear weapons. I say, give them ample warning to evacuate the city, and drop a nuclear missile on Tehran. Tell them once every three months, we'll hit another city until they stop their nuclear weapons program. They'll give it up quick. Might not even need to nuke any of their cities...there would be a revolution in the streets (maybe both us and them?) Israel has been talking about attacking Iran's nuclear program...I'm actually rooting for the Israelis here. Could this be a fracture in U.S.-Israeli relations?

In the final analysis, its all bullshit. The US and the rest of the nuclear club have done an abysmal job in preventing nuclear proliferation. India says they're developing a nuclear weapon, we don't do anything about it. Pakistan says they're building them, too. Another bad idea. We don't do jack squat to stop them. North Korea does it, we get all upset, because they aren't on our golden boy list. Same for Iran. I'm not worried about Pakistan having nuclear weapons. I'm worried about the guy who deposes Kharzide having Nuclear Weapons in Pakistan. We assume that these countries are stable and that is not the case. Especially Pakistan. The US and the rest of the Nuclear Club have already basically by concession admitted they can't stop these pricks from getting nuclear weapons...because they don't really care. They use North Korea and Iran as political tools to encourage countries to allow the US to become their police force.

If we can't really do anything, why don't we stop the hypocrisy of trying to pull these countries strings and just let the rest of the world handle their own problems. Leave Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and just mind our own business. In a proliferating nuclear arena, with new players sitting down at the table, the only thing the United States is going to get for not being able to do anything but still interfering in other country's affairs is attacked and hit hard. In 20 years, there won't be enough missile systems to stop all the threats. The future is, mind your own business and stay out of other people's backyards. The US hasn't figured that out yet.

The alternative, which should be the LAST resort after everything else has been tried is to nuke them all and let god sort it out. Nuclear conflict (but not holocaust/Armageddon necessarily) is inevitable. Do we want to have it now, on our terms, or later when its on their terms? Do we want the war to start when a freighter with a 20 Mton bomb chugs into New York Harbor or when we incinerate Tehran? We aren't accomplishing anything now except wasting time and allowing them to eat into our decisive advantage. We haven't stopped Tehran or Pyongyang. Probably by design.

Now of course, the pacifists are climbing the walls right now, thinking I'm some sort of warmonger. Thats OK. I'm just proposing alternate viewpoints. The only other alternative is that Tehran and Pyongyang having nuclear weapons isn't a big deal, the US makes a big deal to try and intimidate non-nuclear countries into joining the team.

I guess it all hinges on whether you see a world filled with enemies, a world that is punctuated by countries that don;t want the US butting their nose into their business or a world filled with friends we have minor disagreements with. If you see enemies, we should attack Pyongyang and Tehran now. If you see friends, that we need to talk to more and they aren't going to use their nuclear weapons, then everything is fine. The third possibility is the only reason North Korea and Iran want nuclear weapons is to stop the United States from interfering in their affairs. We inasmuch threatened to invade Iran, and having had Saddam do the dirty work for us didn't help. They are building nuclear missiles for defense.

In any case, the United States needs to let the rest of the world alone and deal with their own problems. If they are our enemies, we haven't done jack shit to stop Armageddon. If they are friends, we need to let them deal with their own problems. If they are scared of us and just trying to protect themselves, us leaving them alone will remove the source of their anxiety (partially). Current US policy of us dictating to the world is only going to get the US into wars that have no end from dozens of enemies that can attack us on small fronts and terrorism-based strategies, like ants disassembling a giant beetle.

The middle of 21st Century is going to be either one of great loss of innocent lives or one of a new peace. I guess its up to us, the people that ostensibly rule this country to decide which it is to be.

[Sonthert]

Two other points as I read through these fun and informative posts.

The majority of the world (70%) doesn't like the US. Surveys of people in other countries bear this out.

Popularity Goes up under Obama

Actually, doing a little research, Pew Polls place it at 69% don't like the US...

Pew Poll


There is a simple solution. What they have known since the 1687 is this...Rider Bills are detrimental to democracy. They are the reason we have REALID, and other stupidities. If the Congress has to vote on each item individually democracy would be served and largely unpopular items would be abolished. REALID failed until it was put on the bill with relief funds for Hurricane Katrina victims (or soem national disaster...I think it was Katrina).

There can;t be any back alley deals when a majority of the US Congress has to approve something. Think about it.

[StreetBob]

What was Bush wrong about? Did you actually ask that question? WMDs in Iraq when the UN inspectors had already given Iraq several clean reports. So we're in Iraq based on Bush's mistakes...There is every indication that he was looking for any reason to go to into Iraq (dating back to January 20, 2001) and he used the grief and trauma of 9/11/09 as a political springboard to further his agenda of invading Iraq. Thats one example. Wrong on many levels.

That's not true... UN Inspectors were not giving clean reports. Saddam was not letting the Inspectors do their job, blocking access on numerous occasions. He was playing games and it backfired. If you give the impression that your up to no good, then you shouldn't be upset when your treated as such. And there was no indication that Bush was looking for any reason... he was convince that we should, as well as congress, Dems and Republicans, and other nations because of the games being played. When you surrender in a war, you have obligations to abide by the conditions in the agreement... Saddam did not, so I don't think Bush was wrong or made a mistake.

[tinyj316]

What was Bush wrong about? Did you actually ask that question? WMDs in Iraq when the UN inspectors had already given Iraq several clean reports. So we're in Iraq based on Bush's mistakes...There is every indication that he was looking for any reason to go to into Iraq (dating back to January 20, 2001) and he used the grief and trauma of 9/11/09 as a political springboard to further his agenda of invading Iraq. Thats one example. Wrong on many levels.

That's not true... UN Inspectors were not giving clean reports. Saddam was not letting the Inspectors do their job, blocking access on numerous occasions. He was playing games and it backfired. If you give the impression that your up to no good, then you shouldn't be upset when your treated as such. And there was no indication that Bush was looking for any reason... he was convince that we should, as well as congress, Dems and Republicans, and other nations because of the games being played. When you surrender in a war, you have obligations to abide by the conditions in the agreement... Saddam did not, so I don't think Bush was wrong or made a mistake.

The only reason why Bush wanted to go over there in the first place was because daddy couldn't get it done the first time... The only WMD that was found over there almost a DECADE ago was a couple stale cans of sarin gas... not enough to make it far enough to do any real damage to anyone.

[StreetBob]

What was Bush wrong about? Did you actually ask that question? WMDs in Iraq when the UN inspectors had already given Iraq several clean reports. So we're in Iraq based on Bush's mistakes...There is every indication that he was looking for any reason to go to into Iraq (dating back to January 20, 2001) and he used the grief and trauma of 9/11/09 as a political springboard to further his agenda of invading Iraq. Thats one example. Wrong on many levels.

That's not true... UN Inspectors were not giving clean reports. Saddam was not letting the Inspectors do their job, blocking access on numerous occasions. He was playing games and it backfired. If you give the impression that your up to no good, then you shouldn't be upset when your treated as such. And there was no indication that Bush was looking for any reason... he was convince that we should, as well as congress, Dems and Republicans, and other nations because of the games being played. When you surrender in a war, you have obligations to abide by the conditions in the agreement... Saddam did not, so I don't think Bush was wrong or made a mistake.

The only reason why Bush wanted to go over there in the first place was because daddy couldn't get it done the first time... The only WMD that was found over there almost a DECADE ago was a couple stale cans of sarin gas... not enough to make it far enough to do any real damage to anyone.

Because Daddy couldn't get it done? That's throwing dirt pretty far back... I thought this thread was about Obama.

This always happens, throwing dirt elsewhere when the focus is on you... like when the point comes up about the US not being able to afford the health care plan, Obama die-hards like to bring up how much money Bush spent in Iraq, then sit there smug like they made a point... How much Bush spent in Iraq has nothing to do with whether we can afford the health care plan now... what money was spent is spent, stay focused on a health care plan that is understandable and affordable.

[Rani]

What was Bush wrong about? Did you actually ask that question? WMDs in Iraq when the UN inspectors had already given Iraq several clean reports. So we're in Iraq based on Bush's mistakes...There is every indication that he was looking for any reason to go to into Iraq (dating back to January 20, 2001) and he used the grief and trauma of 9/11/09 as a political springboard to further his agenda of invading Iraq. Thats one example. Wrong on many levels.

That's not true... UN Inspectors were not giving clean reports. Saddam was not letting the Inspectors do their job, blocking access on numerous occasions. He was playing games and it backfired. If you give the impression that your up to no good, then you shouldn't be upset when your treated as such. And there was no indication that Bush was looking for any reason... he was convince that we should, as well as congress, Dems and Republicans, and other nations because of the games being played. When you surrender in a war, you have obligations to abide by the conditions in the agreement... Saddam did not, so I don't think Bush was wrong or made a mistake.

Uh..... Back in 1999 I was dating an officer in the US Marines. He told me then we'd be in Iraq and Afghanistan within 3-4 years because it was common knowledge among high ranking officers that it was on the agenda and an excuse would be manufactured if necessary. So what do you know..... We're in Iraq and Afghanistan just like he said. Damn wonder how that happened? Ten years ago I was told this was coming. Ten years. And people wonder why I don't trust our government. I love my people and the land itself, but our government is about as trustworthy as a pedophile running a preschool.

'Rani

[StreetBob]

What was Bush wrong about? Did you actually ask that question? WMDs in Iraq when the UN inspectors had already given Iraq several clean reports. So we're in Iraq based on Bush's mistakes...There is every indication that he was looking for any reason to go to into Iraq (dating back to January 20, 2001) and he used the grief and trauma of 9/11/09 as a political springboard to further his agenda of invading Iraq. Thats one example. Wrong on many levels.

That's not true... UN Inspectors were not giving clean reports. Saddam was not letting the Inspectors do their job, blocking access on numerous occasions. He was playing games and it backfired. If you give the impression that your up to no good, then you shouldn't be upset when your treated as such. And there was no indication that Bush was looking for any reason... he was convince that we should, as well as congress, Dems and Republicans, and other nations because of the games being played. When you surrender in a war, you have obligations to abide by the conditions in the agreement... Saddam did not, so I don't think Bush was wrong or made a mistake.

Uh..... Back in 1999 I was dating an officer in the US Marines. He told me then we'd be in Iraq and Afghanistan within 3-4 years because it was common knowledge among high ranking officers that it was on the agenda and an excuse would be manufactured if necessary. So what do you know..... We're in Iraq and Afghanistan just like he said. Damn wonder how that happened? Ten years ago I was told this was coming. Ten years. And people wonder why I don't trust our government. I love my people and the land itself, but our government is about as trustworthy as a pedophile running a preschool.

'Rani

It was common knowledge with people that were not even in the military that it was the direction we were going in, and mostly the dirt throwers will pull the manufacture of an excuse angle. This is no different than folks trying to draw up 9/11 as an inside job... distrust of the Govt breeds paranoia, which feeds distrust... it's a snowball

[Rani]

What was Bush wrong about? Did you actually ask that question? WMDs in Iraq when the UN inspectors had already given Iraq several clean reports. So we're in Iraq based on Bush's mistakes...There is every indication that he was looking for any reason to go to into Iraq (dating back to January 20, 2001) and he used the grief and trauma of 9/11/09 as a political springboard to further his agenda of invading Iraq. Thats one example. Wrong on many levels.

That's not true... UN Inspectors were not giving clean reports. Saddam was not letting the Inspectors do their job, blocking access on numerous occasions. He was playing games and it backfired. If you give the impression that your up to no good, then you shouldn't be upset when your treated as such. And there was no indication that Bush was looking for any reason... he was convince that we should, as well as congress, Dems and Republicans, and other nations because of the games being played. When you surrender in a war, you have obligations to abide by the conditions in the agreement... Saddam did not, so I don't think Bush was wrong or made a mistake.

Uh..... Back in 1999 I was dating an officer in the US Marines. He told me then we'd be in Iraq and Afghanistan within 3-4 years because it was common knowledge among high ranking officers that it was on the agenda and an excuse would be manufactured if necessary. So what do you know..... We're in Iraq and Afghanistan just like he said. Damn wonder how that happened? Ten years ago I was told this was coming. Ten years. And people wonder why I don't trust our government. I love my people and the land itself, but our government is about as trustworthy as a pedophile running a preschool.

'Rani

It was common knowledge with people that were not even in the military that it was the direction we were going in, and mostly the dirt throwers will pull the manufacture of an excuse angle. This is no different than folks trying to draw up 9/11 as an inside job... distrust of the Govt breeds paranoia, which feeds distrust... it's a snowball

You're not understanding what I'm saying...... Deployment plans were drawn and already in place. Not "the direction we were going". It was a done deal all but the execution. I'm not a conspiracy theorist. I simply know what I was told. In detail that matches exactly what happened. I may not buy conspiracies, but I damn well don't buy coincidence either. Remember the old saying about "Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you"? I have to say those who don't at least pay attention to the handwriting on the wall are always so damned surprised the planning comes to fruition and they're the victims.

'Rani

[StreetBob]

What was Bush wrong about? Did you actually ask that question? WMDs in Iraq when the UN inspectors had already given Iraq several clean reports. So we're in Iraq based on Bush's mistakes...There is every indication that he was looking for any reason to go to into Iraq (dating back to January 20, 2001) and he used the grief and trauma of 9/11/09 as a political springboard to further his agenda of invading Iraq. Thats one example. Wrong on many levels.

That's not true... UN Inspectors were not giving clean reports. Saddam was not letting the Inspectors do their job, blocking access on numerous occasions. He was playing games and it backfired. If you give the impression that your up to no good, then you shouldn't be upset when your treated as such. And there was no indication that Bush was looking for any reason... he was convince that we should, as well as congress, Dems and Republicans, and other nations because of the games being played. When you surrender in a war, you have obligations to abide by the conditions in the agreement... Saddam did not, so I don't think Bush was wrong or made a mistake.

Uh..... Back in 1999 I was dating an officer in the US Marines. He told me then we'd be in Iraq and Afghanistan within 3-4 years because it was common knowledge among high ranking officers that it was on the agenda and an excuse would be manufactured if necessary. So what do you know..... We're in Iraq and Afghanistan just like he said. Damn wonder how that happened? Ten years ago I was told this was coming. Ten years. And people wonder why I don't trust our government. I love my people and the land itself, but our government is about as trustworthy as a pedophile running a preschool.

'Rani

It was common knowledge with people that were not even in the military that it was the direction we were going in, and mostly the dirt throwers will pull the manufacture of an excuse angle. This is no different than folks trying to draw up 9/11 as an inside job... distrust of the Govt breeds paranoia, which feeds distrust... it's a snowball

You're not understanding what I'm saying...... Deployment plans were drawn and already in place. Not "the direction we were going". It was a done deal all but the execution. I'm not a conspiracy theorist. I simply know what I was told. In detail that matches exactly what happened. I may not buy conspiracies, but I damn well don't buy coincidence either. Remember the old saying about "Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you"? I have to say those who don't at least pay attention to the handwriting on the wall are always so damned surprised the planning comes to fruition and they're the victims.

'Rani

I understand what your saying, but with your Officer friend supporting evidence of... what would you call it? deceiving? corruption? I don't know, but I also have 20 plus years military experience and I will share that we plan for quite a few scenarios. My point is, that we had to have seen going into Iraq as a possibility ever since Iraq invaded Kuwait, so yes we planned for it. Not to deceive, but to be ready when or if it materializes. Do you think we have plans to deal with Iran and N Korea? Does that mean war is inevitable? i hope not

[Sonthert]

Actually, you're wrong. I have the newspaper article released detailing the UN's complete report on Iraq's WMD programs. Yes, Hussein tried to evade inspections, but it certainly didn't stop the UN Weapons Inspectors. It in no uncertain terms said what was known to the Bush Administration...Iraq's last WMD program was dismantled in 1995. You can't just build nuclear weapons or chemical weapons, It takes large amounts of materials and manufactured goods that they never bought (aside from aluminum tubes). When the Bush Administration presented their evidence to the UN to get approval for the war in Iraq (the UN rejected), it called the American evidence unconvincing. That is, America could produce no credible evidence to support their contention that Iraq had WMDs at all.

Let me quote a few excerpts from it: (The San Diego Union Tribune, Thursday Oct. 7, 2004, Pages A1, A14)
Written by Ken Guggenheim, Associated Press

"Key findings from the final report of the Iraq Survey Group, which was hunting for evidence of Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq. The report was issued yesterday: [Wednesday, Oct. 6, 2004]

Nuclear Weapons- Saddam Hussein ended his nuclear program in 1991, after the Gulf War and there was no evidence he tried to restart it. Senior Iraqi officials believe he would restart a nuclear program if UN sanctions were lifted.

Biological Weapons- Baghdad abandoned its biological weapons programs in 1995 out of fear it would be discovered. Iraq destroyed its hidden biological weapons stocks in 1991 and 1992. No evidence was uncovered that Iraq had biological weapons production systems mounted on trucks or rail cars.

Chemical Weapons- Iraq unilaterally destroyed its hidden chemical weapons stockpile in 1991, and there is no evidence Iraq ever resumed producing such weapons.

Missile systems- There is no evidence that Iraq had any SCUD missiles when the United States invaded last year."

The UN weapons inspectors knew all this information. The US was aware of it. After the US invasion, it confirmed what was already known. The UN knew, for instance, that Iraq had discontinued their nuclear program in 1991. After the invasion, they were able to confirm their original findings.

Lets say for a minute you're right. Lets say the US had evidence for the invasion of Iraq. I think its axiomatic to say that war should be a last resort, in the face of undeniable, absolutely obvious and transparent information. Mistakes should not be made when it comes to committing our troops and resources to war. The loss of life, the damage, the misery. The US failed in this regard. The proof wasn't absolute and obvious. It was thin and highly doubtful at best.

You asked what was Bush wrong about. Iraq had no WMDs. He was wrong about that. He said they did. I heard him on TV. He was wrong for declaring a war on and attacking a country without adequate proof. Saying they didn't submit to inspections isn't a just cause for invasion either. If you disagree with this, I'm sure you won't mind if the police show up at your door tomorrow and arrest you for having illegal weapons because you didn't allow them to search your house. You won't mind if they arrest you for having illegal weapons if they have no proof you don't have illegal weapons. Or alternately, you won't mind if they base your arrest on the same "unconvincing" evidence they used to attack Iraq. What would even make it better is if a whole bunch of other policemen come along and tell the cop who's arresting you that he's wrong and you're innocent, which is what the other countries in the UN told the United States, but Bush goes ahead with it anyways. Its unconscionable if it happens to one American citizen...why is it less so when its a whole country?

Bush was misinformed somebody might be saying? Who's responsible for the thousands of US soldiers, Iraqi soldiers killed, the Iraqi civilian casualties? If he was misinformed, then its his fault for not researching the information completely and basing the most grave and serious decision the Leader of the Free World can make on faulty information. The UN vote on the matter wasn't even close. To a man who is trying to act correctly and justly, this should be a warning bell: "Check the facts." Support for the Resolution to the Iraqi war numbered seven countries. Countries like Benin and Tonga agreed that Iraq had no WMDs after being presented with the United States' evidence...so these country's intelligence services are better than ours?...even though they probably don't have intelligence services? Your left with two uncomfortable choices: Bush was lying or Tonga knows more than we do. Which seems more likely?

Rani- I've talked to a couple of intelligence people from the Marines in high security clearances. There are standing invasion plans for more than 12 countries, including Japan, North Korea, Iran, Iraq and several other interesting ones. They exist, but they are just contingency plans, in case the US has to invade. I had the same reaction when I was told about them at first and then they explained what they were for. IF we have to invade them, here's the plan. Some of them are updated versions of old plans. The plans to invade Iraq or Iran are at least 25 years old, updated with current information, but old.

[clibinarius]

Uh..... Back in 1999 I was dating an officer in the US Marines. He told me then we'd be in Iraq and Afghanistan within 3-4 years because it was common knowledge among high ranking officers that it was on the agenda and an excuse would be manufactured if necessary. So what do you know..... We're in Iraq and Afghanistan just like he said. Damn wonder how that happened? Ten years ago I was told this was coming. Ten years. And people wonder why I don't trust our government. I love my people and the land itself, but our government is about as trustworthy as a pedophile running a preschool.

'Rani

Back in 1999, I was essentially a child (13) and even I knew we were going to invade Afghanistan, but the question was when. It wasn't hard to figure out. Clinton did bomb them. I remember being in Texas and it was in the newspapers, the threat posed by Afghanistan. I remember mentioning it in class, also, and the teacher concurred (the rest of the students had no clue what we were talking about). It wasn't just common knowledge among high ranking officers: Anyone who was paying attention knew. Including children.

The problem was, no one was paying attention. By and large, the scary part about all things political, no one's paying attention STILL. Its sort of amazing. I remember people talking about how September 11th changed everything. I can't think of too many things it changed except a bunch of dumb bureaucratic programs sprung up that didn't prevent massive terrorist attacks in Britain or Spain-the Spanish example might be evidence of a profound failure of intelligence, since it knocked the Spanish out of the Iraq War.

As far as Iraq is concerned, it was an Arab country with name recognition. I honestly think we were there because 2 out of every 3 bureaucrats could probably find it on a map. I think, by and large, the people running the country are that dumb. I used to tell a joke to liberal friends when it came to Bush being too stupid to run the country:

"He's too dumb to be running the country. It must be Cheney."

"Too dumb? Really? But do you think the country's being run by an idiot?"

"Yes!"

"Then how on earth can you conclude that (Cheney is running the country)? If its run by an idiot, and Bush is an idiot, I think it indicates Bush is in charge!"

[StreetBob]

Actually, you're wrong. I have the newspaper article released detailing the UN's complete report on Iraq's WMD programs. Yes, Hussein tried to evade inspections, but it certainly didn't stop the UN Weapons Inspectors. It in no uncertain terms said what was known to the Bush Administration...Iraq's last WMD program was dismantled in 1995. You can't just build nuclear weapons or chemical weapons, It takes large amounts of materials and manufactured goods that they never bought (aside from aluminum tubes). When the Bush Administration presented their evidence to the UN to get approval for the war in Iraq (the UN rejected), it called the American evidence unconvincing. That is, America could produce no credible evidence to support their contention that Iraq had WMDs at all.

I remember it pretty clearly... On numerous occasions he prevented access by inspectors. He would eventually let them in, but not when they initially requested access. In the meantime, Intel had photos of truck convoys lining up at the facilities in question. That is not cooperation. It may not be convincing evidence of WMD, but Iraq had an obligation to cooperate.

[FiveSpeedF150]

You're not understanding what I'm saying...... Deployment plans were drawn and already in place. Not "the direction we were going". It was a done deal all but the execution. I'm not a conspiracy theorist. I simply know what I was told. In detail that matches exactly what happened. I may not buy conspiracies, but I damn well don't buy coincidence either. Remember the old saying about "Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you"? I have to say those who don't at least pay attention to the handwriting on the wall are always so damned surprised the planning comes to fruition and they're the victims.

'Rani

Respectfully, the .gov has plans for almost any situation. They've got a whole lotta officers and only so much real work for them. I wouldn't be surprised to find that we had a plan to invade every country on the map.... "Just in Case".

Although, I do agree with you that Iraq was inevitable, for a whole host of reasons, all of which are probably so far above my paygrade that my brain hurts just thinking about them. Saying simply " so-and-so had a hardon for Iraq" doesn't quite accurately explain all the reasoning.

I remember it pretty clearly... On numerous occasions he prevented access by inspectors. He would eventually let them in, but not when they initially requested access. In the meantime, Intel had photos of truck convoys lining up at the facilities in question. That is not cooperation. It may not be convincing evidence of WMD, but Iraq had an obligation to cooperate.

What a surprise! Lesson of the day: If you work so hard to convince America that you do, in fact, have a whole lotta canned sunshine, they just might use that as justification to come knocking with tanks one day....
Edited September 21, 2009 by FiveSpeedF150

[Rani]

Sonthert, FiveSpeed, I've been trying to remember details of the conversation because God knows it's been a while. I have family members who made a career out of the Intelligence both military and "just plain spook" from what they've told me - or rather not told me as the case may be! I've always known there were contingency plans in place - I'd be horrified if they weren't there because the world isn't exactly a peaceful place. This conversation wasn't like that though. It was a "we are going and soon and this is how we're doing it". Now, I'm willing to admit this was an officer involved in military intelligence and men wanting to impress women have a tendency to embellish on what they know. But adding it to other things I'd heard along the way. Like that tainted election and my grandmother who'd been through a thing or two in her lifetime and was strongly political saying "We're going to have to go war to distract people from thinking Bush didn't win". Sure enough one materialized right on cue. I know there are people out there who even think 9/11 was arranged by our own government to give justification for going to war. I don't buy that. It's not a logical move with way too much risk should it be discovered when so many other things could more easily be bought into play, like claiming the other guys have WMDs. Do I think there are members of our government who are capable of such a thing? Absolutely. But actually taking the risk of triggering a revolutiion should something go wrong and the populace find out you've terrorized your own people? Nah..... I can't see enough of the required number and placement of people with enough shared lunacy getting together and pulling that off.

The thing is no government or head of government in recorded history has been benevolent. Including ours. It's not the nature of a government to be benevolent. A government like the head of government is an entity that continues to make choices in it's own best interest. Even if those decisions go against it's own people in which case it will find justification. Cases in point, King Herod demanded the arrest and trial of Christ not because he was preaching love and understanding but because he was a political revolutionary who threatened the established power of the temple and political systems. Alexander the Great is hailed as a man who unified and brought enlightment to most of the known world of his day. Never mind that he massacred army after army, razed city after city and rebuilt new cities on the ashes naming them all after himself along the way. Even Hitler used the excuse of purifying the Aryan race which sat just fine with the Aryans. Whatever they want to do they will find a phoney alturistic reason, clutch it to their bosoms and go ahead with what they wanted. Just like a woman will forget her birth control pills in the interest of "furthering her relationship". Greater good my ass. I hated Bush because on his best day he was still a doofus with a vice-president who managed to shoot his own friends. I mean, the comedy potential was just too great to take his administration with any faith at all. I like Obama because he's charismatic, and a lot of what he wants to do fits in with what I want done. But if anyone including me thinks he's on my side, our side, for the betterment of the American people, etc., that's just plain nonsense. He will make the decisions that are in his and the governments own best interest. Just as will the Republican party the Democratic party and every other politician and lobbyist in the Capitol. I expect no less, no more. My best hope is that those decisions are ones that will better my own life. Until we get true control back of our government that I think is the best we can reasonably hope for.

'Rani

[FiveSpeedF150]

'Rani

I won't disagree with a word you said there, I'll just leave this little quote.....

"Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one."
-- Thomas Paine

[Sonthert]

So anytime a police officer comes around and wants to search somebody's property, and the owner declines to let the police search, they are guilty?

I'm not questioning your recollections. Just your facts. Iraq did resist and try to evade inspections, but the UN weapons inspectors still found nothing and after the invasion the UN Weapons Inspectors confirmed everything they had already reported and concluded.

Are you justifying war based on questionable evidence? Doesn't proof and a sense of justice play into this? No concern for all the people that will die in the war? Like I said, if you believe that to be the case, then you won't mind being thrown into prison if the police have no evidence other than you not wanting them to search your house. Thats the same justification you are citing for the war in Iraq. No proof, just an unwillingness to cooperate with searches.

Don't you think whether its the arrest of somebody, or declaring war on a country that the proof should be undeniable, overwhelming and complete?

[StreetBob]

So anytime a police officer comes around and wants to search somebody's property, and the owner declines to let the police search, they are guilty?

I'm not questioning your recollections. Just your facts. Iraq did resist and try to evade inspections, but the UN weapons inspectors still found nothing and after the invasion the UN Weapons Inspectors confirmed everything they had already reported and concluded.

Are you justifying war based on questionable evidence? Doesn't proof and a sense of justice play into this? No concern for all the people that will die in the war? Like I said, if you believe that to be the case, then you won't mind being thrown into prison if the police have no evidence other than you not wanting them to search your house. Thats the same justification you are citing for the war in Iraq. No proof, just an unwillingness to cooperate with searches.

Don't you think whether its the arrest of somebody, or declaring war on a country that the proof should be undeniable, overwhelming and complete?

If the police has a search warrant you will not get away with declining

Yes they found nothing, but wasn't allowed to search where and when they needed.

The proof doesn't have to be undeniable if you are not following the conditions of surrender, but that's my opinion, obviously you don't agree, I'm OK with that. I understand a lot of people do not see it the way I do.

[clibinarius]

If the police has a search warrant you will not get away with declining

Yes they found nothing, but wasn't allowed to search where and when they needed.

The proof doesn't have to be undeniable if you are not following the conditions of surrender, but that's my opinion, obviously you don't agree, I'm OK with that. I understand a lot of people do not see it the way I do.

The problem with Iraq is there was a "Guilty Until Proven Innocent" type of bend here. Even if someone has a search warrant, you are still innocent until proven guilty. If there's enough evidence of a crime, it gets brought to trial and a decision is rendered and executed in the trial.

In this case, there was no basis to bring it to trial. If someone acts suspicious, that does not mean the police have a right to railroad them.

Of course, nations aren't people and thus don't deserve the same rights as people. By your standard, why not invade DPRK for their weapons? Pakistan? India? Israel? Those Swedes are up to something-I suggest we look through their bomb project too. Why Iraq?

I honestly believe, once again, we invaded Iraq because people know its Arab, can't tell the difference between it and Morocco, and MIGHT be able to find it on a map. I don't believe there was any other reasoning. It didn't make much sense for the arguments given and while there MIGHT be some good reasons to invade Iraq, the government never gave them to anyone, and thus, it could be concluded the government probably didn't have any good reasons to invade Iraq. Suppose that tomorrow, WMDs are found in Iraq. Does that get the Bush administration off the hook? No. For that administration had no intelligence they were there and were found purely by chance or outside help by this point.

Its a political failure-Iraq-more than anything else. All reasons given for why we should be there turned out to be rather faulty. If people STILL are justifying the war as "The world's a better place without Saddam" I would simply counter "Then why not continue making the world a better place?"-that's an easy way to call "BS" on this argument, because to imply Saddam is the worst evil in the world ignores all the other evils, and thus, is ignorant. Suppose the world is a better place without him; that doesn't make us safer (it is a neutral statement) and thus has nothing to do with the pretext.

[Rani]

If the police has a search warrant you will not get away with declining

Yes they found nothing, but wasn't allowed to search where and when they needed.

The proof doesn't have to be undeniable if you are not following the conditions of surrender, but that's my opinion, obviously you don't agree, I'm OK with that. I understand a lot of people do not see it the way I do.

The problem with Iraq is there was a "Guilty Until Proven Innocent" type of bend here. Even if someone has a search warrant, you are still innocent until proven guilty. If there's enough evidence of a crime, it gets brought to trial and a decision is rendered and executed in the trial.

In this case, there was no basis to bring it to trial. If someone acts suspicious, that does not mean the police have a right to railroad them.

Of course, nations aren't people and thus don't deserve the same rights as people. By your standard, why not invade DPRK for their weapons? Pakistan? India? Israel? Those Swedes are up to something-I suggest we look through their bomb project too. Why Iraq?

I honestly believe, once again, we invaded Iraq because people know its Arab, can't tell the difference between it and Morocco, and MIGHT be able to find it on a map. I don't believe there was any other reasoning. It didn't make much sense for the arguments given and while there MIGHT be some good reasons to invade Iraq, the government never gave them to anyone, and thus, it could be concluded the government probably didn't have any good reasons to invade Iraq. Suppose that tomorrow, WMDs are found in Iraq. Does that get the Bush administration off the hook? No. For that administration had no intelligence they were there and were found purely by chance or outside help by this point.

Its a political failure-Iraq-more than anything else. All reasons given for why we should be there turned out to be rather faulty. If people STILL are justifying the war as "The world's a better place without Saddam" I would simply counter "Then why not continue making the world a better place?"-that's an easy way to call "BS" on this argument, because to imply Saddam is the worst evil in the world ignores all the other evils, and thus, is ignorant. Suppose the world is a better place without him; that doesn't make us safer (it is a neutral statement) and thus has nothing to do with the pretext.

I'm not sure you have any acquaintance to the way our judicial system really works. Because I guarantee you, you're actually guilty until you prove your inocence and very likely to be railroaded to keep the prosecutors numbers up.

People need to remember what it's like to be on the otherside of this coin. Imagine for just a moment this is not the big bad have all the goodies USA. Imagine we're the 3rd world end of things - low standard of living, a constant big brother who keeps showing up to insist we do things their way and putting their soilders on our soil to make sure we do, financial and economic pressure, all down the line. They've got the nuclear warheads. Wouldn't you want a few of your own as a deterrant? While I don't believe nuclear proliferation is a good thing, I believe it's an understandable thing given the inequalities between this nation and most of the rest of the world. We don't have much of a cow about our so called allied nations having them, but no we want to stereotype the "crazy" nations and assume they're going to develop weapons specifically to use them against us. Kinda makes you wonder what we did to piss them off to the point we so sure they're going to use them offensively doesn't it?

'Rani

[russianwizard]

Democrat and Republican based elections are utter crap. There usually 2 candidates that suck pretty bad, but one sucks a little less. The general US populous voted for a man because of one word, (Change). So you can see why this system is full of crap. I think we should get rid of this two party nonsense with smaller parties on the sideleines, and just have a general set of candidates. People should vote for someone based on what they can/will do, not for what "side" there on.

[clibinarius]

I'm not sure you have any acquaintance to the way our judicial system really works. Because I guarantee you, you're actually guilty until you prove your inocence and very likely to be railroaded to keep the prosecutors numbers up.

People need to remember what it's like to be on the otherside of this coin. Imagine for just a moment this is not the big bad have all the goodies USA. Imagine we're the 3rd world end of things - low standard of living, a constant big brother who keeps showing up to insist we do things their way and putting their soilders on our soil to make sure we do, financial and economic pressure, all down the line. They've got the nuclear warheads. Wouldn't you want a few of your own as a deterrant? While I don't believe nuclear proliferation is a good thing, I believe it's an understandable thing given the inequalities between this nation and most of the rest of the world. We don't have much of a cow about our so called allied nations having them, but no we want to stereotype the "crazy" nations and assume they're going to develop weapons specifically to use them against us. Kinda makes you wonder what we did to piss them off to the point we so sure they're going to use them offensively doesn't it?

'Rani

Sigh...I know I know. But it shouldn't work that way. I'm bringing up the "Correct model" instead of the "real model"!

[Sonthert]

So anytime a police officer comes around and wants to search somebody's property, and the owner declines to let the police search, they are guilty?

I'm not questioning your recollections. Just your facts. Iraq did resist and try to evade inspections, but the UN weapons inspectors still found nothing and after the invasion the UN Weapons Inspectors confirmed everything they had already reported and concluded.

Are you justifying war based on questionable evidence? Doesn't proof and a sense of justice play into this? No concern for all the people that will die in the war? Like I said, if you believe that to be the case, then you won't mind being thrown into prison if the police have no evidence other than you not wanting them to search your house. Thats the same justification you are citing for the war in Iraq. No proof, just an unwillingness to cooperate with searches.

Don't you think whether its the arrest of somebody, or declaring war on a country that the proof should be undeniable, overwhelming and complete?

If the police has a search warrant you will not get away with declining

Yes they found nothing, but wasn't allowed to search where and when they needed.

The proof doesn't have to be undeniable if you are not following the conditions of surrender, but that's my opinion, obviously you don't agree, I'm OK with that. I understand a lot of people do not see it the way I do.

You might be correct in a sense, but those weapons inspections were under the auspices of the United Nations...not the U.S. When the U.S. presented all the same information and more (a lot of it false/wrong) to the same United Nations, the UN overwhelmingly rejected the U.S. proposal to invade Iraq...

The only question here is...when did it become the US' responsibility to police Iraq's WMDs? It was the duty of the UN, not the US. If you buy the illegal search scenario at all, it would be analogous to you living in the US, denying the search, having the American Police conduct multiple searches and then have the Australian Police come and arrest you.

You're under the impression that the United States has some right to go around telling countries what is what and demanding things from countries. There are 187 other (and 2 honorary) members in the United Nations. The United States is not the only country in the world. Thats why the terrorists attacked us on 9/11, in my opinion. Us walking around like we're above the other countries. I remember some demands the terrorists forwarded after 9/11 (not clearly...conspiracy theory BS?)...one of them was to stop supporting Israel, one of them was for us to get our troops out of Saudi Arabia (who had been there since the end of the first Gulf War). 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi. Perhaps they didn't agree with the perspective that the US has the right to dictate to the rest of the world. Bin Laden is a Saudi. The knife in our back says "Made in Saudi Arabia". Why did we attack Iraq? Bush claimed it was supporting Al Queda. They were similar to the terrorists from 9/11 and a lot of other finger pointing. So, we did attack...we moved them into Iraq. Or were the troops in Saudi Arabia with the intention of invading Iraq at some future point? Bush Sr. didn't get reelected...Clinton might have been cool to the idea, Bush Jr. gets into office and then 9/11, boom, they whoosh into Iraq? Would they have whooshed in if Bush Sr. gets elected to a second term? Interesting speculation either way, to be sure.