Originally Posted by InTTruder
I opine you misinerpret WTS. As do most. Sherman was of course (in his dregs commentary) noting that the South (read 'the Isalmists' for my perspective) "Poured the cup of war". We are merely cleaining it up.
I am not your friend, nor your enemy, so don't patronize me or anyone else. I am not living the 'liberator fantasy', but I have seen the positive effects America is having in Iraq. You may choose to ignore them, while I will not ignore the errors made. So be it. We all have our delusions.
"Your kids" aren't going I imagine. They won't volunteer. That's OK, this is America. Even were a draft necessary, I doubt 'they' would go. And the 'Hitler-sytle' mantra is loosing its chic. America has not persectued the Arab, nor penned them into ghettos, nor murdered them as an act of policy in the millions. We didn't play nice w/ Saddam until 30 September, then invade. We made it very clear 'we are coming'. You invested in the politics of avoidance (and misinterpret WTS to boot), and so you feel horrified that innocents die. Guess what: so do I.
WMD- would you allow your neighbor to knowingly pursue assembly and operation of a meth lab? Even for 'personal use'? Ad infinitum?
ROTFLMDAO- take your blinders off!
Stick a fork in me, I'm done for today.
Well, at least you express your opinions clearly. The problem is, when are so clearly capable of expressing your opinion and stop short of offering more than that superior attitude about "you don't understand this ... or that" about WMD or the war on terror, your opinions sound empty and based on a whole hearted belief in the Republican Party propaganda.
The UN was
controlling Saddam. The only WMD in Iraq at the time we invaded, or the few years immediately preceding our invasion on false pretenses it turned out, were the ones under guard since the previous Iraq war that had been gathered and stored under UN supervision until we forced those inspectors and guards out with our Shock and Awe campaign. We were so unprepared for the consequences of our blundering invasion, we did not even know to set up watch over those items until months later.
We have the technology to have observed Saddam's initiatives and traced every move of the WMDs our lying President, lying Vice President and lying then National Security Advisor so feverishly and repeatedly told us and the world were in Iraq without any question. Kennedy used the best technology he had available to make his case in the UN for the Cuban Missile Crisis embargo. George did nothing of the kind to present a case with real evidence to the UN or the American people. In fact, he did nothing to validate his case. And that has turned out to cost us dearly.
The war on terror never had anything to do with Iraq until cowboy George told the world of Islam to "bring it on" and then invited them to kill Americans one, two or three at a time as bait in Iraq. American soldiers are always to be honored for their service to our country. Part of that tradition should be to have a President who is at least willing to exercise available intellectual and technical resources to be right before he sends them into harm's way. How you interpret the careless expenditure of our volunteer
armed forces as being somehow loyal support of them is beyond me.
I was convinced Bush did all that before he invaded. The time that has passed has only made it clear he did not. It is possible he did not because he did not know how. The only other feasible explanation is he is just a plain liar with an agenda that is too distasteful for the American public to know about. In either case he is criminally liable (just like you would be if you portrayed yourself as a qualified bridge engineer, built some defective bridges, killed a few dozen people and then were found out) and unsuitable for the position of President of the United States. The standard is not based on the cliche' that "anyone in America can be President" being interpreted as the standard for being President is to be the lowest common denominator of the American population.