Go back and look at the replies in this thread from all the people who were (on a scale of 1 to 5, with five being definite) *5* certain that WMDs would be found in Iraq.

And not the flimsy excuses for WMDs they're gonna defend themselves with now, but real genuine, USA threatening weapons of mass destruction.

Read how absolutely certain they were. Then know that these are the people who support our President. Apparently they do so whether he's right or wrong.

So, basically what you're saying Dax, is that it is far better to believe a threat exists but do nothing about it, than to believe a threat exists, do something about it, and then discover the threat wasn't a serious as everyone...EVERYONE believed it to be. Is that it?

I voted yes because the last time I saw poor Sodom (disrespectful mis-spelling intended) his only weapons appeared to be fairly good teeth and VERY long dirty fingernails.

Dax I agree with your statement. Here in Australia weapons of massed destruction were the only reason we went to war according to our Prime Minister Howard. He did not mention regime change or the real reason to suck up to the Americans,

Oh Dax, Dax, Dax. I don't plan to talk about the United Nations. Why? Because this thread isn't about the United Nations. Because if it WAS about the UN then we'd be going into great detail about bribed Security Council Members, and duped weapons inspection teams, not to mention all that Oil-for-Palaces nonsense.

But the reason I bring up the UN is merely to remind everyone (or at least those who have memories going back past 24-hours) that had Democrats been in charge, Saddam Hussein would still be shooting at allied aircraft enforcing the no-fly zone while we would STILL be pissing around with the UN whose aforementioned bribed security council members were pushing to lift ALL sanctions against Iraq.

Ahhh, yes! Iraq. I'll go along with the conclusion of the presidential commission on WMD in that the intelligence agencies, both domestic AND foreign had it wrong. They were all wrong, leading everyone to believe that Saddam Hussein DID have the weapons capability that Saddam, himself, bent over backwards to make people believe he had. So that left the United States, and Britain along with "old" "young" and "in-between" Europe plus a great many people in positions of influence at the United Nations ALL believing Saddam Hussein possessed WMD, which he most certainly DID possess and use in the past, and which he, as mentioned a moment ago, busted his butt have everyone believe he still had.

So now, without the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, we have George W. Bush saying that something needs to be done about Saddam Hussein and it needs to be done right damned now, and his Bush-bashing opponents whining and crying about letting the (this time with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight) thoroughly compromised, scandal-ridden United Nations take care of the problem.

Who do YOU trust with our national security? Obviously some of us put our faith in those who have been nearly always on the wrong side of foreign policy for 60+ years, but others of us prefer to rely upon those who have been nearly always right in their foreign policy decisions.

You can whine and cry all you want, Dax, but there are some damned good things going on in the Middle East at the moment, things that presage a stable, vibrant and (most importantly) Western-friendly Arab Street. And about all the Democratic Party leadership can do is say "Not in OUR name!" as they jump up and down in impotent temper tantrums.

Wow Ray, that last post sounded pretty pathetic, desperate even. First of all, if it was a democratic administration in the White House you would have your panties all in a bunch about this intelligence "failure". It really is amazing how quick you are to exonerate the White House in the days leading up to the war.

Second, the CIA is just an extension of the White House and they are influenced by who is currently in in control of the White House. They are also subjected to the whims of politics. Meaning, that if the White House is pushing an agenda, the CIA is under pressure to make reports that conform TO that agenda. Why do you think the White House took reports that said we're unsure about WMD's and turned them into, We know exactly where WMD's are. They are north, south, east, and west...

Ray, that really was a pathetic justification for the White Houses actions leading up to the war. What the White House did in regards to this latest report is called damage control. Never admit your wrong. And blame everything on your subordinates. You guys picked one hell of an administration. At least you admit that you were incredibly gullible, buying into the garbage they were feeding you before the war.

Not all Americans bought into though. Many, like myself, saw right through the misinformation, the mistruths, and the flat out lies the Bush administration has spoon fed this country. I find it rather sad that you want to just simply chalk all this mess up to bad intelligence. I would think you'd realize it really isn't that black and white.

Quote:

---

You can whine and cry all you want, Dax, but there are some damned good things going on in the Middle East at the moment, things that presage a stable, vibrant and (most importantly) Western-friendly Arab Street. And about all the Democratic Party leadership can do is say "Not in OUR name!" as they jump up and down in impotent temper tantrums.

---

Talk to me when these damned good things going on in the middle east at the moment continue when there's no gun rammed down their throats. If we want to democratize the world by fighting it one country at a time, we're not America. Let me know when the Iraqi elections benefit the west in some way (Not benefit Coke, McDonald's and Halliburton, but real people.)

I concede the possibility that some of the middle east countries will stabilize and form democracies that can last without overt American support, but honestly I don't see it happening.

Republican administrations tend to sponsor right-wing leaders rather than left wing leaders, and so our support in the middle east will go to the rightie politicians who the United States can buy. If the US becomes less of an influence, it is likely that the right wing will continue to grow stronger and the religious factions will war against any installed secular government.

It would be nice if we could all put on our burnooses and dance across the sand, but I don't think it's gonna work that way, and I fear for the future of the area when the US presence is gone.

Quote:

---

Talk to me when these damned good things going on in the middle east at the moment continue when there's no gun rammed down their throats. If we want to democratize the world by fighting it one country at a time, we're not America. Let me know when the Iraqi elections benefit the west in some way (Not benefit Coke, McDonald's and Halliburton, but real people.)

---

Dax, the real reason we are in Iraq, and I would have felt much better about it had this administration admitted to it, is for strategic control of the middle east. To put it simply, we're there for the oil. Thats why you don't see us meddling in places like Africa. While Africa holds a wealth of natural resources, that the rest of the west has been taking advantage of, we have Latin America to take advantage of. Which goes back to your comment about us sponsoring far right/fascist regimes. Latin America is the perfect example of that practice put to use. Remember what Monroe said? Latin America is our little America.

So it pretty much is all about the oil. Maybe a year ago Helice started a thread about peak oil supplies. She posted some links to aftertheoilcrisis.com, I think, which gave you a detailed, bleak assessment about our future. Well, we're supposed to hit peak oil consumption sometime near next Thanksgiving, which really should be a wake-up call to every American. The most optimistic predictions say we have about 100 years of oil left. The most pessimistic say we could be out in as soon as 25 - 30 years. Logic dictates that it will fall somewhere in between. People really don't realize the profound effect this will have on the planet. Everything is produced by oil....

Anyway, I could go on about it but my point was, the reason we're in Iraq is for the oil. It has nothing to do with bringing democracy to the region. This country has never cared much for democracy, well, true democracies, or human rights for that matter. Thats why you've seen this country support some of the worst buchers this planet has ever seen, Saddam included.

There was a great interview with a geologist on the Philly NPR station about whats up with our oil supplies and where we're heading in the future. I recommend you all listen to it. It should scare the hell out of you.
About our oil supplies.

Quote:

---

stone: Well, we're supposed to hit peak oil consumption sometime near next Thanksgiving, which really should be a wake-up call to every American.

---

If America isn't awake yet, it's not going to. Gas is $2.25 in my area and nobody seems to care much about it. It's a big yawn.

With a Republican congress doing the bidding of the administration, it's time for the President to declare an all out man-on-the-moon style attempt to decrease our dependency on oil.

What do you think the chances of that happening are?