Forums

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Adder
Not true. If they found tons of WMD, I would (1) admit that the administration was right about it, and (2) feel better about the otherwise woeful track record of foreign intelligence.

Yes true. You would admit that the administration was right because you would have to. You might feel better about foreign intelligence but who cares about that. The issue is would you 1) Support the war and our involvement 2) Support the Bush administration; if you found out there were WMDs - I think not.

Originally posted by Adder
The Clinton administration thought that years ago. As it appears today, it seems that once that belief was established, we were unable to gain any updated intelligence to unseat that established belief (I mean, why would Saddam have gotten rid of them, right?)

How are we supposed to know what is in every square inch of a country that is thousands of sqaure miles, and whose government isn't exactly helpful in our pursuit of gathering intelligence on them. All of a sudden a liberals think our intelligence should know absolutely everything about every inch of every foreign country. It is just absurd. It would be like blaming the New York City police for not anticpating every murder in the city last year.

Originally posted by Adder
I believe the suggestion has been not that the administration didn't believe that there were WMD, but that (1) WMD were not the real motivation for the invasion, and (2) the administration is incompetent because it believed there were WMD when there were not. Or it didn't want to believe otherwise.

They felt it was in our interest to invade and were trying to convince the American people. What did you expect them to do - lay out the argument for the other side? So the administration got it wrong. Was it such a huge mistake. Why is that such a big deal. We still unseated a genocidal dictator.

Originally posted by Adder
The invasion was not predicated on some ancient mustard gas. I can't agree that this statement has any real support.

It was predicated on the idea that Saddam Hussein had it in for the US. the embargo was slipping and he soon would have access to revenue from his massive oil supplies. It was becoming extremely more difficult for us to keep our no fly zones. Eventually he was going to get a hold of a US pilot has prisoner. It didn't look like the local insurgents were going to topple him anytime soon. We had invaded the country before so we new we could topple him pretty quickly. Al Queda, with only the help of a backward state took out the WTC, which showed us that if terrorists hooked up with a powerful state (Iraq) they could do more damage. Saddam was a brutal dicator that was willing to use WMDs on his own people and probalby would do so again, and might use them on his neighbors. And finally, he flagrantly broke the treaty that ended Gulf War One. When Hitler ignored the Versailles treaty and that was ignored it didn't turn out well.

Originally posted by Adder
That's all it takes? I believe that maybe, someday in the future, you might get WMD, so we're sending in the Marines? Or is it just that Saddam's a bad guy?

I think gassing the Kurds, and draining the swamps were enough to justify an invasion.

Originally posted by Adder
Nice of you to make that judgment for them. But seriously, you don't think a rational Iraqi could disagree with you?

NO. Three is no rational argument in support of a genocidal dictator.

Originally posted by Adder
And now they are under the sway of the United States Marines. Certainly preferable to Saddam, but i'm not sure that it is a shining picture of freedom. Nor does it seem likely to be anytime soon.

When was the goal of our foreign policy perfection. So if we couldn't set up a perfect society we shouldn't go in. The question is not whether it is perfect, the question is the country significantly better off - and it is.

Originally posted by Adder
Seriously now, why is this your judgment to make?

It wasn't my judgement to make, but it certainly was the Bush administrations. The Bush administration had the means to end Saddam's reign and they decided to do it. Not ending the reign would also have been a decision based on moral judgement, and a bad one.

Originally posted by Adder
Nice false dichotomy.

No - an unfortunate fact that liberals are in denial off. If you were against the invasion you were for keeping Saddam in Power. It is that simple. You may have liked Saddam gone with out an invasion but that wasn't an option.