The 3rd and Final Presidential Debate! Lions and Tigers and Ayers? OH MY!

[bwills]

Let's see...so, according to you, after the largest attack on US soil, we immediately decided to NOT go after those responsible,

Are you forgetting that we went into Afghanistan BEFORE Iraq?

but rather were worried about the possibility of another dictator in another country who had nothing to do with it cooperating with our enemies with WMDs he ended up not having?

Well, it's easy to dismiss the threat of WMDs with the clarity of 20/20 hindsight, but to answer your question, yes. Whether or not he had anything to do with 911 was immaterial. It was the threat he posed and the common enemy he had with al Qaida.

 

[LChinoz]

Are you forgetting that we went into Afghanistan BEFORE Iraq?

True, but as I said before, after it happened, we did NOT go after them. We devoted most of our troops to Iraq, hence, we got sidetracked.

 

[RoboDad]

Let's see...so, according to you, after the largest attack on US soil, we immediately decided to NOT go after those responsible, but rather were worried about the possibility of another dictator in another country who had nothing to do with it cooperating with our enemies by providing WMDs he ended up not having?

This is why 8 years later we have not gotten those responsible...

Huh? I have come to expect better than this from you. You aren't usually given to such revisionist history. Breaking your post down:

1) We didn't go into Iraq immediately after 9/11. We went into Afghanistan (in October 2001, and we are still there). We didn't go into Iraq until March of 2003, 18 months later.

2) Iraq could have easily prevented the war by offering full compliance with the UN demands for open inspections. Yet they didn't. That led many (not just Bush) to conclude that they must be hiding something, and there was intel that supported that conclusion, even though it was later proven inaccurate.

3) It has been 7 years since 9/11, not 8. But the hatred of Bush is now so deep-seated (and therefore, irrational) in many peoples' minds that they associated his entire presidency with Iraq, which is now viewed as a failed "immediate" response to 9/11.

If you want to discuss the failings of the Iraq war, then that's fine. But please don't start resorting to this kind of hyperbole.

 

[hoodonit00]

Facts? What good are those for? Most people don't want to look at facts.

BTW: on your post

+2. I was going to state something familiar, but seeing as he went to the trouble I don't have to.

What's funny is that some of the biggest names in the Govt. agreed that Saddam had WMD's, both Clintons said he had WMD's, ALL of the allied governments thought he had WMD's, his own troops thought he had WMD's, but because none were found, Bush lied.

Even if he didn't have WMD's, as soon as the sanctions were lifted he would have pursued them again anyway. He still had the scientist to make them.

What do some of you anti-Iraq war people think about Darfur I wonder?

 

[LChinoz]

And yes, many people thought there were WMDs there, but that doesn't change the fact that they were all wrong. Trust me, I give them the benefit of the doubt, with the intelligence they recieved, and the attitudes of America at the time, but again, we were wrong. No argument there.

Ever watch Maury? All the information could tell you that a man who had frequent affairs and one night stands and multiple kids is the father, but in the end if he isn't, the accuser is wrong, and is all embarrassed and stuff. Even after being vindicated, the man is still not a good person, not by a long shot, and should still be punished for his wrongdoings of the past. But he was not guilty of fathering the child.

Terrible analogy? Yes, but that's what I'm here for

 

[bwills]

kuzeh says: "We all know the reason Iraq was invaded wasn't because of Saddam being a murderer ... believing that is just naive. And I agree he was a sick tyrant, but, so is W. I can't believe some people don't see it."

I don't agree with several of the President's policies. I've even questioned what we were doing in Iraq over the past few years. But I really can't understand where a comment like this comes from. Seriously. To call a sitting U.S. president a "tyrant" and compare him to a man who was responsible for well over 1,000,000 deaths is just an opinion that I cannot even comprehend.

 

[carbo-fation]

Oh yeah, by the way, Marines are now leaving a safer and freed Fallujah and handing it back to the Iraqi people. No thanks are necessary. Shoot, I guess this story isn't important enough to report on, because I've seen very little coverage in the media.

https://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,439612,00.html

Fallujah was safe prior to the illegal invasion and it was because of us that it became a war zone. I am glad that it has gotten safer but the fact remains, there were no attacks in that city prior to the invasion. But thanks for citing a an article from FoxNews. Always love a good laugh.

Kuzeh - and believing the absolute worst about Pres. Bush and why he chose to invade Iraq is equally naive in my opinion. Here are the indesputable facts:

1) We were attacked primarily by Saudi nationals from Iraq's backyard.
2) Almost 3000 Americans are killed by the largest attack on U.S. soil
3) Both domestic and foreign intelligence stated that Saddam had WMDs.
4) The UN believed he had WMDs and had passed 16 resolutions for Iraqi compliance with disarmament before resolution 1441, which was the final resolution promising "serious consequences."
5) High ranking Senators from both parties believed he had WMDs. They all saw the same intelligence President Bush saw, they sat on the same intelligence committees, and were intimately involved with the situation. They all drew the EXACT SAME CONCLUSION and authorized the use of force. Bill Clinton believed this as well.

Please get your facts straight. The UN found no traces or any proof of WMDs in Iraq and no foreign intelligence agreed with our supposed findings except for Mossad. And please provide some prove for the allegation that most of the attackers were from Iraq. Saddam could never stomach the Saudis or any Islamic terrorist groups, i.e Al-Qaeda because he was largely secular, a fact that most people seem to forget.

Facts? What good are those for? Most people don't want to look at facts.

Are you incapable of following your own advice?

Well, it's easy to dismiss the threat of WMDs with the clarity of 20/20 hindsight, but to answer your question, yes. Whether or not he had anything to do with 911 was immaterial. It was the threat he posed and the common enemy he had with al Qaida.

Saddam was benign. He hadn't done anything since the first Gulf War and he was no more of a threat to the US than Pres. Musharref or Castro. We went to Iraq for completely different reasons. Again, there was NO CONNECTION BETWEEN SADDAM AND AL-QAEDA!!!

 

[bwills]

And yes, many people thought there were WMDs there, but that doesn't change the fact that they were all wrong. Trust me, I give them the benefit of the doubt, with the intelligence they recieved, and the attitudes of America at the time, but again, we were wrong. No argument there.

Ever watch Maury? All the information could tell you that a man who had frequent affairs and one night stands and multiple kids is the father, but in the end if he isn't, the accuser is wrong, and is all embarrassed and stuff. Even after being vindicated, the man is still not a good person, not by a long shot, and should still be punished for his wrongdoings of the past. But he was not guilty of fathering the child.

Terrible analogy? Yes, but that's what I'm here for

You're right, that's a horrible analogy. But my question to you and kuzeh, why the single-minded focus on the President? That's what I don't understand. The rabid, irrational, blame-Bush-for-everything hatred is what I don't get.

 

[LChinoz]

Huh? I have come to expect better than this from you. You aren't usually given to such revisionist history. Breaking your post down:

1) We didn't go into Iraq immediately after 9/11. We went into Afghanistan (in October 2001, and we are still there). We didn't go into Iraq until March of 2003, 18 months later.

2) Iraq could have easily prevented the war by offering full compliance with the UN demands for open inspections. Yet they didn't. That led many (not just Bush) to conclude that they must be hiding something, and there was intel that supported that conclusion, even though it was later proven inaccurate.

3) It has been 7 years since 9/11, not 8. But the hatred of Bush is now so deep-seated (and therefore, irrational) in many peoples' minds that they associated his entire presidency with Iraq, which is now viewed as a failed "immediate" response to 9/11.

If you want to discuss the failings of the Iraq war, then that's fine. But please don't start resorting to this kind of hyperbole.

Sorry, as general as I was, I was trying to come to terms with what the previous post meant. Not stating what I believe. I believe that we took our resources out of Afghanistan to go to Iraq. My post was about being sidetracked. If I am guilty of falling into hyperbole along the way, I am ashamed

And I meant 7, not 8. Again,

 

[RoboDad]

And yes, many people thought there were WMDs there, but that doesn't change the fact that they were all wrong. Trust me, I give them the benefit of the doubt, with the intelligence they recieved, and the attitudes of America at the time, but again, we were wrong. No argument there.

Ever watch Maury? All the information could tell you that a man who had frequent affairs and one night stands and multiple kids is the father, but in the end if he isn't, the accuser is wrong, and is all embarrassed and stuff. Even after being vindicated, the man is still not a good person, not by a long shot, and should still be punished for his wrongdoings of the past. But he was not guilty of fathering the child.

Terrible analogy? Yes, but that's what I'm here for

I agree. But I am willing to look at the events in hindsight, and say, "we made some horrible mistakes, and we SHOULD NOT make those mistakes again, but in the end, the world is better off for having Saddam Hussein dead, so we did the right thing, but for the wrong reasons."

Here's a question for you. Would you have supported the war if the stated reason beforehand was that there is a mass-murdering, genocidal dictator that needs to be removed from power?

 

[LChinoz]

You're right, that's a horrible analogy. But my question to you and kuzeh, why the single-minded focus on the President? That's what I don't understand. The rabid, irrational, blame-Bush-for-everything hatred is what I don't get.

I blame Cheney

 

[RoboDad]

Sorry, as general as I was, I was trying to come to terms with what the previous post meant. Not stating what I believe. I believe that we took our resources out of Afghanistan to go to Iraq. My post was about being sidetracked. If I am guilty of falling into hyperbole along the way, I am ashamed

And I meant 7, not 8. Again,

No worries. It happens to the best of us (and in general, even though we don't always agree, I consider you one of the more level-headed people in these hot topic discussions). I know I make my share of hyperbolic comments, once in a GREAT while .

 

[LChinoz]

Here's a question for you. Would you have supported the war if the stated reason beforehand was that there is a mass-murdering, genocidal dictator that needs to be removed from power?

Probably not, since there are a lot of dictators in the world and I don't personally think war should be the first option. If however, it was stated as you have, then I would understand the need for war, and follow up with "What took so long?"

 

[bwills]

Carbo - read my post before commenting. If the UN passed 17 resolutions stating Iraq must disarm and open up for inspections, the Law of Contradiction says they MUST'VE believed something was going on inside Iraq in terms of WMDs.

Uh, I think you're forgetting the German intelligence just to name one.

"And please provide some prove for the allegation that most of the attackers were from Iraq."

I didn't say they were Iraqi. I said they were Saudi nationals in Iraq's geographical backyard.

"Saddam could never stomach the Saudis or any Islamic terrorist groups, i.e Al-Qaeda because he was largely secular, a fact that most people seem to forget."

So? It doesn't mean he wouldn't work with them to facilitate a common goal.

 

[LChinoz]

No worries. It happens to the best of us (and in general, even though we don't always agree, I consider you one of the more level-headed people in these hot topic discussions). I know I make my share of hyperbolic comments, once in a GREAT while .

Cheers mate!

 

[CelticPredator]

So, we should have just let Saddam continue to commit mass murders? I suppose you think the U.S. taking on and defeating Nazi Germany during WWII was a bad idea too?

It was until Japan bombed us.

 

[Mesa]

Carbo - read my post before commenting. If the UN passed 17 resolutions stating Iraq must disarm and open up for inspections, the Law of Contradiction says they MUST'VE believed something was going on inside Iraq in terms of WMDs.

Uh, I think you're forgetting the German intelligence just to name one.

"And please provide some prove for the allegation that most of the attackers were from Iraq."

I didn't say they were Iraqi. I said they were Saudi nationals in Iraq's geographical backyard.

"Saddam could never stomach the Saudis or any Islamic terrorist groups, i.e Al-Qaeda because he was largely secular, a fact that most people seem to forget."

So? It doesn't mean he wouldn't work with them to facilitate a common goal.

bwillis, just use {quote} quoted phrase {/quote}. Replace {} with []

 

[RoboDad]

Probably not, since there are a lot of dictators in the world and I don't personally think war should be the first option. If however, it was stated as you have, then I would understand the need for war, and follow up with "What took so long?"

Fair enough. The reason I asked is because I have heard some Obama supporters talking about how we need to get the troops out of Iraq so that we can go after some of the other genocidal dictators out there. On some level, those people strike me as very hypocritical since that is, essentially, what we did in Iraq.

 

[RoboDad]

It was until Japan bombed us.

Sorry, but how did Japan bombing us make it OK to go after Hitler? He hadn't attacked any US-held lands. In fact, he never did.

 

[CelticPredator]

Theres a connection thing....I dont know. I forgot, but us getting bombed brought us into the war, ^^^^ happend, we saw what Hitler was doing....and the rest is histoy.