Crown

Quote:
The Groom said:

Quote:
icon said:

Quote:
RC said:
And finally, the US should start to do their job in Irak to end the insurgencies. The only way they can do it is to double the troop strength, improve daily life in Irak and finally do what the Iranians do very well: propaganda.

why do you view it as the responsibility of the united states?

You break it, you buy it.

Would you like us to say the same about pre-June 1944 Europe. That was your problem that you let get out of hand. You broke it, you fix it. In this case, the 'breaking' involved not pre-emptively taking care of Hitler's Germany before it was able to build up it's military offensive capabilities. Instead, it involved appeasment.

In Iran, history may be repeating itself.

Great info about Dubai - looks like some behind-the-scenes view that I hadn't discovered yet.

Quote:
SoCal Alan said:
...In Iran, history may be repeating itself.

Unfortunately, it isn't. The initial situation in the Iraq might have been similiar to events during and at the end of WW2. The way political institutions, infrastructure and social safety was established back then was way superior than today. Several sources already claimed the poorly accomplished post-dictatorial situation in the Iraq and there is one thing you shouldn't forget: the Iraqi people were not involved in the war as it was the case 60 years ago.

Quote:
Ferdie said:
Great info about Dubai - looks like some behind-the-scenes view that I hadn't discovered yet.

Quote:
SoCal Alan said:
...In Iran, history may be repeating itself.

Unfortunately, it isn't. The initial situation in the Iraq might have been similiar to events during and at the end of WW2. The way political institutions, infrastructure and social safety was established back then was way superior than today. Several sources already claimed the poorly accomplished post-dictatorial situation in the Iraq and there is one thing you shouldn't forget: the Iraqi people were not involved in the war as it was the case 60 years ago.

Ferdie, I mentioned Iran, not Iraq.

Quote:
SoCal Alan said:

Quote:
The Groom said:

Quote:
icon said:

Quote:
RC said:
And finally, the US should start to do their job in Irak to end the insurgencies. The only way they can do it is to double the troop strength, improve daily life in Irak and finally do what the Iranians do very well: propaganda.

why do you view it as the responsibility of the united states?

You break it, you buy it.

Would you like us to say the same about pre-June 1944 Europe. That was your problem that you let get out of hand. You broke it, you fix it. In this case, the 'breaking' involved not pre-emptively taking care of Hitler's Germany before it was able to build up it's military offensive capabilities. Instead, it involved appeasment.

In Iran, history may be repeating itself.

The WW2 political capital has been well and truly exhausted. It was in America's interest to jump into the war, so as not to let the Communists gain control of Europe. Politics have nothing to do with good intentions. Even Churchill let all the italian Fascists off, so as to suppress growing Communism in Italy.
Regarding Iraq, yes, it was broken. However, the US had repeatedly stated that they were going in because of WMDs, not to save the Iraqi people. Then, after the WMDs weren't found, they changed their tune to "liberating the Iraqi people from an evil dictator".
Of course Saddam changing Iraqi oil currency from the dollar to the euro had nothing to do with it .
The conditions in the country prior to 1991 were all right. They really started deteriorating after the UN-imposed sanctions after the first Gulf war and really fell apart after the US occupation of Iraq.
Is it a coincidence that so many generals are calling for Rumsfeld to step down?
You should've left Iraq alone. You'd have a lot more manoeuvering space to deal with Iran, which is becoming a sort of a regional superpower, thanks to its influence in Iraq.
That's just my take and hopefully we'll get back on topic now.

Quote:
Crash said:
Regarding Iraq, yes, it was broken. However, the US had repeatedly stated that they were going in because of WMDs, not to save the Iraqi people. Then, after the WMDs weren't found, they changed their tune to "liberating the Iraqi people from an evil dictator".

Hence, the name "Operation Iraqi Freedom".

I didn't support the invasion of Iraq, but after it began I just pray for a positive outcome.

sorry guys,
didnt mean to wind things up in a bad way!
just found rc's comment interesting and was asking for the reason.
i perhaps see his reasoning as many of you have pointed out and only hope for a positive outcome as well!
the internet has opened up this kind of free speech between countries and hopefully a lot of future problems can be averted through international communication.

Quote:
SoCal Alan said:

Quote:
Crash said:
Regarding Iraq, yes, it was broken. However, the US had repeatedly stated that they were going in because of WMDs, not to save the Iraqi people. Then, after the WMDs weren't found, they changed their tune to "liberating the Iraqi people from an evil dictator".

Hence, the name "Operation Iraqi Freedom".

Any country you guys occupy is considered free . Now, to clarify, I had a good time watching the Abrams tanks rolling into Iraq and obliterating everything in their sight and I'm a huge military buff. However, my critique stands. A true waste of the greatest war machine that ever existed.

Quote:
SoCal Alan said:

Quote:
Crash said:
Regarding Iraq, yes, it was broken. However, the US had repeatedly stated that they were going in because of WMDs, not to save the Iraqi people. Then, after the WMDs weren't found, they changed their tune to "liberating the Iraqi people from an evil dictator".

Hence, the name "Operation Iraqi Freedom".

Yeah, There were at least 20 reasons given for removing Saddam, his tyrannical regime and his wonderful offspring. Most countries and politicians saw the same intel that President Bush did and agreed/said there was a threat- but NOW only he lied . Many in the drive-by media, the usual anti/blame America crowd and many liberal politicians want to turn a great victory into a defeat. Matters are, and will continue to get even better- have faith my friends.

BTW, Saddam used WMD's on his own people , was also at least trying to reconstitute his WMD program, was a sponsor of terrorism...

BIG thanks to The UK, Australia, The UAE, and many others for being a dependable ally in the war on terror.

OK, hopefully no more political chat! Let's talk about the positive attributes of cars (and countries ).

Quote:
SVNSVN said:

Quote:
SoCal Alan said:

Quote:
Crash said:
Regarding Iraq, yes, it was broken. However, the US had repeatedly stated that they were going in because of WMDs, not to save the Iraqi people. Then, after the WMDs weren't found, they changed their tune to "liberating the Iraqi people from an evil dictator".

Hence, the name "Operation Iraqi Freedom".

Yeah, There were at least 20 reasons given for removing Saddam, his tyrannical regime and his wonderful offspring. Most countries and politicians saw the same intel that President Bush did and agreed/said there was a threat- but NOW only he lied . Many in the drive-by media, the usual anti/blame America crowd and many liberal politicians want to turn a great victory into a defeat. Matters are, and will continue to get even better- have faith my friends.

BTW, Saddam used WMD's on his own people , was also at least trying to reconstitute his WMD program, was a sponsor of terrorism...

BIG thanks to The UK, Australia, The UAE, and many others for being a dependable ally in the war on terror.

OK, hopefully no more political chat! Let's talk about the positive attributes of cars (and countries ).

I hope everybody realizes that I was being sarcastic. The name "Operation Iraqi Freedom" was chosen well before the US even began the operation. The Bush government wasn't exacty "changing it's tune", like Crash was trying to assert. In fact, in his speech to the American people within the first 24 hours of the operation, he stated clearly that we were freeing the Iraqi people.

This is the first line from his opening speech...


THE PRESIDENT: My fellow citizens, at this hour, American and coalition forces are in the early stages of military operations to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger.


Full text: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030319-17.html

If we're going to discuss issues of this importance, please let's not have selective memory. Please let's not rewrite history. Let's be fair and honest.

Quote:
THE PRESIDENT: My fellow citizens, at this hour, American and coalition forces are in the early stages of military operations to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger.

Interesting that you missed that part. The disarming comes BEFORE the liberation part . Only part of Americans still believe this administration and with good reason. If you ask me, you should've used all these troops in Afghanistan. They could do a heck of a lot more.
Furthermore, I'm not one of those people who claim that Iraq was a paradise with flowery meadows, rainbow skies and rivers made of chocolate, where children danced and laughed and played with gumdrop smiles, however, most Iraqis will tell you that the situation is worse than it was before 2003.
Don't underestimate politicians, as most of them are dishonest, including the US politicians. They made their friends rich and the politically loyal Americans are defending their actions, out of sheer patriotism. Not saying the French are any better, but in this case they weren't the ones invading a country.
Regarding dozens of statesmen, all of whom supposedly saw the intelligence, you have to realize that most are just kissing butt, trying to win favor of currently the world's only superpower. If you actually looked at the split, you'd see that most people in those countries were against the occupation.
Now, don't get me wrong. If things were correctly planned, there wouldn't be an issue. If you sent in 500.000 troops, things would be a lot more stable in Iraq, but Bush would probably have lost the 2004 election (sending half a million men to fight in a god forsaken stretch of land, millions of miles away, is a good formula for losing a presidency - remember Johnson?).
You guys should dump Rumsfeld and actually appoint a secretary who would work WITH the military, not OVER them. That way, conditions would get much better in Iraq and that WOULD justify the invasion. As things stand right now, though, nothing can justify it, as long as the inhabitants live worse than before.

crash you make assumptions, use hindsight, stereotype, and have all the answers.
it's a complex situation that is not going to be resolved on rennteam.

Quote:
icon said:
crash you make assumptions, use hindsight, stereotype, and have all the answers.
it's a complex situation that is not going to be resolved on rennteam.

No. I actually look at all the facts, before making a statement. Things aren't black and white. The US aren't the infidel crusading army, but they are also not the righteous good guys. Sure, the soldiers may be, but the poiticians are far from it.
It just seems that Europeans and Americans are really divided on this issue. Of course the situation isn't going to resolve itself on Rennteam, but what did you expect with the "why does the US have to assume responsibility" comment?

i replied to one poster for his point of view.
i did not make a general comment.
but you are right in that it was a mistake on my part!

The situation in Iraq is an awful mess, and who knows how the hell it's going to get fixed. They should have tried to free Cuba, it would have been easier

Quote:
rhino said:
The situation in Iraq is an awful mess, and who knows how the hell it's going to get fixed. They should have tried to free Cuba, it would have been easier

No, sorry rhino- don't think so! That's just what many of the drive-by media, many liberal politicians and folks like crash( anti/ blame America first.. ) will tell you and want you to believe. Listen to the Bush Administration, our noble troops, and the brave Iraqi people who each day are taking more control of their country.

No more mass graves being filled by Saddam, no more mass torture, no more rape rooms...
More power/electricity, clean water, schools , hospitals... Saddam can't invade or threaten his neighbors, no more tyrannical regime, the Iraqi people now have a chance to live in freedom- sounds much better to me!!!

Hey, nobody said it would be easy - most worth while things in life aren't. Matters are getting better and will continue to do so! Patience my friends.

Thats how Cuba used to be

Quote:
SVNSVN said:

Quote:
rhino said:
The situation in Iraq is an awful mess, and who knows how the hell it's going to get fixed. They should have tried to free Cuba, it would have been easier

No, sorry rhino- don't think so! That's just what many of the drive-by media, many liberal politicians and folks like crash( anti/ blame America first.. ) will tell you and want you to believe. Listen to the Bush Administration, our noble troops, and the brave Iraqi people who each day are taking more control of their country.

No more mass graves being filled by Saddam, no more mass torture, no more rape rooms...
More power/electricity, clean water, schools , hospitals... Saddam can't invade or threaten his neighbors, no more tyrannical regime, the Iraqi people now have a chance to live in freedom- sounds much better to me!!!

Hey, nobody said it would be easy - most worth while things in life aren't. Matters are getting better and will continue to do so! Patience my friends.

"Folks like Crash, who blame America first?" You are SO wrong with this comment that the Viet Nam blunder seems like a joke compard to it. Great, you're a patriot, good for you. However, if you DO listen to your "noble" troops, many will tell you what a hell hole Iraq has become, many of them Special Ops operators.
Like I have stated many times before, I do admire the effort your troops are putting out and I think they deserve all the help they can get. However, this administration is wrong for the job. Not saying you should have elected Kerry (who's got more flip flops than a beach house), but a man like Senator McCain would probably fit the role much better.
Second, on the mass graves part; a friend of my father's is an Iraqi, who had moved here 20 years ago. He's in contact with his family and from what I hear the entire country is a mess.
No more mass graves? Good for them, but how does that help the fifty (50!) people blown up each day by insurgents or militias whom the authorities have no control over.
More power and electricity? Only if you listen to the White House.
Furthermore, who would Saddam invade or threaten? His army was devastated in 1991 and hit hard by the UN sanctions (pretty much the entire population was), the WMD program was, by all accounts nonexistant, with the exception of claims made by a general, who made good money selling a book about how they were moved to Syria. May have happened or it may not have happened. However, the evidence is overwhelmingly against it (not many people corroborated this).
In any case, as an "anti-American, malwishing, european, wants to see the evil imperialist empire of the capitalist, heathen, heretical United States destroyed" person (that's what I understand under the label "folks like crash( anti/ blame America first.. )" I hope to God you never have to face the stern realities, which run contrary to your comments.
However, I really like the US, I like Americans, and I sincerely wish that you'd succeed in Iraq. That way the Iraqis may truly be free and live in peace and prosperity, as opposed to fearing for their lives all the time and your troops can finally go home to their families.

Quote:
icon said:
i replied to one poster for his point of view.
i did not make a general comment.
but you are right in that it was a mistake on my part!

And I'm sorry I responded in an aggressive tone.

Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf, is that you?

I'm sorry about the threadjacking, but this is getting out of hand. Material conditions (e.g. electricity, water, gas availability, schools) were much better under Saddam. I once supported the invasion because I thought it'd bring freedom to Iraq indeed (regarless of the phony WMD pretext). Up to a few months ago, I'd even agree with you that things were (albeit slowly) improving.
But now, death squads are back, bombs are killing dozens of Iraqis every day, and the people is living in fear again. It is a shame that such an opportunity has been squandered.

Quote:
The Groom said:
Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf, is that you?

I'm sorry about the threadjacking, but this is getting out of hand. Material conditions (e.g. electricity, water, gas availability, schools) were much better under Saddam. I once supported the invasion because I thought it'd bring freedom to Iraq indeed (regarless of the phony WMD pretext). Up to a few months ago, I'd even agree with you that things were (albeit slowly) improving.
But now, death squads are back, bombs are killing dozens of Iraqis every day, and the people is living in fear again. It is a shame that such an opportunity has been squandered.

It seems that there is no will in the US to do what their aim was, three years ago. Want this thing to be over? Put 500.000 pairs of boots on the ground, extra gunships, more recon helicopters to watch the pipelines and you win the war. Of course, no administration that sends so many troops on foreign soil would get elected again (although I would vote for them in that case).

I agree with Crash and Groom.
Also, I also think that Saddam's Iraq was disaster...
Since I am a lawyer with PhD in International law I can tell that several things that USA did was clear breakin of some International Laws. Guantanamo Bay prisons for example.
If this prisoners are truly dangerous for USA(or any other country) put them to trail(I love USA legal system!) in USA and after fair trail sentence them to prison(or death). But, do not keep them in some allmost ilegal prison for infinite time!
Iraq is the country with excellent natural resources(read OIL) and IMO this was a major reason for USA military intervention. I also belive that some western leaders should learn a lot about Islam as a religion and as a culture. Some of our precious western values do not work there... Models of western democratic systems can not be applied to Islamic countries without big modifications to that systems...
I also receive an emial from my friend who is in US Military and is in Iraq at the moment(he was an official US advisor to Croatian Army before...) and his enthusiasm about US involvment is droping rapidly! He literally said "we need to end this quickly or we could stay here for another decade!".
And gents there are again IMO some other countries that are more dangerous to our western values then Iraq or any other Islamic country...

Sorry, gentlemen- but things are and will continue to get better: deaths to the Iraqi police/military and civilian population ( US troops too)are down in the past several months...Also, the aforementioned improvement/ progress is real. You just likely don't hear of it from the media. Fair minded politicians from both parties have noted slow but steady progress. As I indicated before, I'm not under the illusion that it'll be easy and our presence will likely be required for many months, if not several years. Patience my friends!

Quote:
Crash said:

Quote:
SVNSVN said:

Quote:
rhino said:
The situation in Iraq is an awful mess, and who knows how the hell it's going to get fixed. They should have tried to free Cuba, it would have been easier

No, sorry rhino- don't think so! That's just what many of the drive-by media, many liberal politicians and folks like crash( anti/ blame America first.. ) will tell you and want you to believe. Listen to the Bush Administration, our noble troops, and the brave Iraqi people who each day are taking more control of their country.

No more mass graves being filled by Saddam, no more mass torture, no more rape rooms...
More power/electricity, clean water, schools , hospitals... Saddam can't invade or threaten his neighbors, no more tyrannical regime, the Iraqi people now have a chance to live in freedom- sounds much better to me!!!

Hey, nobody said it would be easy - most worth while things in life aren't. Matters are getting better and will continue to do so! Patience my friends.

"Folks like Crash, who blame America first?" You are SO wrong with this comment that the Viet Nam blunder seems like a joke compard to it. Great, you're a patriot, good for you. However, if you DO listen to your "noble" troops, many will tell you what a hell hole Iraq has become, many of them Special Ops operators.
Like I have stated many times before, I do admire the effort your troops are putting out and I think they deserve all the help they can get. However, this administration is wrong for the job. Not saying you should have elected Kerry (who's got more flip flops than a beach house), but a man like Senator McCain would probably fit the role much better.
Second, on the mass graves part; a friend of my father's is an Iraqi, who had moved here 20 years ago. He's in contact with his family and from what I hear the entire country is a mess.
No more mass graves? Good for them, but how does that help the fifty (50!) people blown up each day by insurgents or militias whom the authorities have no control over.
More power and electricity? Only if you listen to the White House.
Furthermore, who would Saddam invade or threaten? His army was devastated in 1991 and hit hard by the UN sanctions (pretty much the entire population was), the WMD program was, by all accounts nonexistant, with the exception of claims made by a general, who made good money selling a book about how they were moved to Syria. May have happened or it may not have happened. However, the evidence is overwhelmingly against it (not many people corroborated this).
In any case, as an "anti-American, malwishing, european, wants to see the evil imperialist empire of the capitalist, heathen, heretical United States destroyed" person (that's what I understand under the label "folks like crash( anti/ blame America first.. )" I hope to God you never have to face the stern realities, which run contrary to your comments.
However, I really like the US, I like Americans, and I sincerely wish that you'd succeed in Iraq. That way the Iraqis may truly be free and live in peace and prosperity, as opposed to fearing for their lives all the time and your troops can finally go home to their families.

Crash,

I hope I'm wrong about my statement that you seemed to be anti or blame America first. It was made based on your mostly unfavorable comments and negative tone in general.

I just hope we can be honest when it comes to discussing these important issues. There is so much information none of us are privy too. Better yet, lets stick to dicussing the positive attributes of cars and people/ countries...

Quote:
SVNSVN said:
Sorry, gentlemen- but things are and will continue to get better: deaths to the Iraqi police/military and civilian population ( US troops too)are down in the past several months...

Did you crawl under a rock on February 21st and return only now, two months later? Civilian deaths have never been as high as in the last two months, with mosques keep blowing up every day.
I agreed with you until 2 months ago. I thought Iraq could be fixed. The Feb. 22 bombing in Najaf has changed everything. What was mostly a war between US troops and guerillas, has turned into a genuine civil war now. That's not what I call "progress".

Quote:
SVNSVN said:

Quote:
Crash said:

Quote:
SVNSVN said:

Quote:
rhino said:
The situation in Iraq is an awful mess, and who knows how the hell it's going to get fixed. They should have tried to free Cuba, it would have been easier

No, sorry rhino- don't think so! That's just what many of the drive-by media, many liberal politicians and folks like crash( anti/ blame America first.. ) will tell you and want you to believe. Listen to the Bush Administration, our noble troops, and the brave Iraqi people who each day are taking more control of their country.

No more mass graves being filled by Saddam, no more mass torture, no more rape rooms...
More power/electricity, clean water, schools , hospitals... Saddam can't invade or threaten his neighbors, no more tyrannical regime, the Iraqi people now have a chance to live in freedom- sounds much better to me!!!

Hey, nobody said it would be easy - most worth while things in life aren't. Matters are getting better and will continue to do so! Patience my friends.

"Folks like Crash, who blame America first?" You are SO wrong with this comment that the Viet Nam blunder seems like a joke compard to it. Great, you're a patriot, good for you. However, if you DO listen to your "noble" troops, many will tell you what a hell hole Iraq has become, many of them Special Ops operators.
Like I have stated many times before, I do admire the effort your troops are putting out and I think they deserve all the help they can get. However, this administration is wrong for the job. Not saying you should have elected Kerry (who's got more flip flops than a beach house), but a man like Senator McCain would probably fit the role much better.
Second, on the mass graves part; a friend of my father's is an Iraqi, who had moved here 20 years ago. He's in contact with his family and from what I hear the entire country is a mess.
No more mass graves? Good for them, but how does that help the fifty (50!) people blown up each day by insurgents or militias whom the authorities have no control over.
More power and electricity? Only if you listen to the White House.
Furthermore, who would Saddam invade or threaten? His army was devastated in 1991 and hit hard by the UN sanctions (pretty much the entire population was), the WMD program was, by all accounts nonexistant, with the exception of claims made by a general, who made good money selling a book about how they were moved to Syria. May have happened or it may not have happened. However, the evidence is overwhelmingly against it (not many people corroborated this).
In any case, as an "anti-American, malwishing, european, wants to see the evil imperialist empire of the capitalist, heathen, heretical United States destroyed" person (that's what I understand under the label "folks like crash( anti/ blame America first.. )" I hope to God you never have to face the stern realities, which run contrary to your comments.
However, I really like the US, I like Americans, and I sincerely wish that you'd succeed in Iraq. That way the Iraqis may truly be free and live in peace and prosperity, as opposed to fearing for their lives all the time and your troops can finally go home to their families.

Crash,

I hope I'm wrong about my statement that you seemed to be anti or blame America first. It was made based on your mostly unfavorable comments and negative tone in general.

I just hope we can be honest when it comes to discussing these important issues. There is so much information none of us are privy too. Better yet, lets stick to dicussing the positive attributes of cars and people/ countries...

I never mean any harm with my comments. I do point out what bothers me, regardless of how much I actually like a country. It just seems to me that the US has lost a lot of capital that it had accumulated prior to and immediately after 9/11 and I don't like it when I hear some people literally cheering when they hear of US military deaths, something which has been unheard of during the last 60 years. Hopefully your military proves us all wrong and succeeds, but I believe an opposition with a healthy dose of scepticism is always necessary to maintain balance in international affairs. Even more so with the volatile political situation of today.

Fair enough Crash! As long as we're willing to acknowledge the good too! Unfortunately many only hear of, or dwell on the negative.

The Groom,

I disagree, bud. That's definitely not the numbers I've heard. And if there was a righteous civil war, it would take many, many more troops and there would be a lot more deaths... As I've said, have faith- you'll see!

Quote:
SVNSVN said:
Fair enough Crash! As long as we're willing to acknowledge the good too! ...

That's what I like about this board - properly educated people that you can share a discussion with in a civilized manner.

I think all of us are mature enough not to take anything personal!

Bottom line to the above topic: I don't think people lack the acknowledgement about the effort US troops put into their duties in the Iraq, neither do they question the rightousness of the vast majority of them. What people rather have a problem with was the initial intention - and as I said above, the problems that occur where sadly forseeable.

Cheers, guys!

Quote:
Ferdie said:

Quote:
SVNSVN said:
Fair enough Crash! As long as we're willing to acknowledge the good too! ...

That's what I like about this board - properly educated people that you can share a discussion with in a civilized manner.

I think all of us are mature enough not to take anything personal!

Bottom line to the above topic: I don't think people lack the acknowledgement about the effort US troops put into their duties in the Iraq, neither do they question the rightousness of the vast majority of them. What people rather have a problem with was the initial intention - and as I said above, the problems that occur where sadly forseeable.

Cheers, guys!

Obviously, the major disagreement we have is that the people who are in support of the operation believe that the intention was genuine, whereas the the opposite holds true for those who don't have that initial support. What you believe is what you believe. It's going to take a lot of compelling evidence to change either of our minds.

Right now, there is no compelling evidence that there was a lie or a deliberate attempt to mislead. If so, please point that out to everbody. On the other hand, there is a lot of compelling evidence that the administration believed that there were WMD's present in Iraq.

Do we remember the threats made days before the invasion by Saddam that he had ordered his generals to get ready to use chemical weapons agains the American troops?

Do we remember the amount of times our troops were warned to put on it's chemical protective gear during the initial month of the invasion of Iraq?

Do we remember when troops were asked to put on it's chemical protective gear when Iraqi missles were headed towards the troops.

Do we remember during the operation, the attempts by special ops to secure sensitive locations because we believed that WMD's were there?

Do we remember the trailers that we said were mobile chemical weapons labs?

Do we remember the large nuclear facility which we suspected containing enriched uranium which we found had certain levels of radiation, but later turned up to be nothing of significance?

This was a time when everyone believed that there was a genuine threat of WMD's being used on our troops.

In my opinion, the argument to disarm Saddam was reasonable at the time. The fact that Saddam is out while no significant WMDS's were found is quite embarassing. But remember one thing which is indisputable: Saddam did have WMD's which were not accounted for. The UN inspectors established that because they inventoried the WMD's beforehand. Remember the demand that Iraq account for all their WMD's and that it be placed in a report, which Saddam complied with? That report was inconsistent with the UN inspector's previous inventory. What happened to the WMD's? That was the main bone of contention which forced us to disarm Iraq.

I don't believe that there is any evidence that the administration was lying or misleading the public. I do believe that the administration was using as much information it believed to be correct to "make it's case". If you believe that this was misleading the public, then maybe we just have a different interpretation of the term.

If you believed beforehand that the Bush Administration is corrupt, then yes, you would probably believe that he misled or worst, lied to the American people. If you didn't believe beforehand that the Bush Administration is corrupt, then you would probably believe that the intention was correct, based on the beforehand evidence and the behaviour of the Saddam government before and during the invasion. I have no evidence that the Bush Administration is corrupt as far as the WOT is concerned.

Finally, if you believe that Bush lied, you also must believe that Clinton lied too. Remember Operation Desert Fox? In fact, one could make an argument that Bush was copying Clinton's speech exactly as far as the arguments for military action against Iraq was concerned.

http://www.cnn.com/US/9812/16/clinton.iraq.speech/

Quote:
JimFlat6 said:
Forget Dubai for sports cars.

Universal automobile surveillance comes to the United Arab Emirates:

IBM will begin installing a "Smart Box" system in vehicles in the United Arab Emirates next year, potentially generating millions in traffic fines for the Gulf state. The UAE signed a $125 million contract with IBM today to provide the high-tech traffic monitoring and speed-enforcing system in which a GPS-enabled "Smart Box" would be installed in cars to provide a voice warning if the driver exceeds the local speed limit for wherever he may be driving. If the voice warning is ignored, the system would use a GSM/GPRS link to beam the car's speed, identity and location to the police so that a ticket could be issued. The system would also track and monitor any other driving violations, including "reckless behavior."

http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2005/04/universal_autom.html

Then i will find the nearest cliff and jump without hesitation