Latest Diablo 3 News
DiabloWiki Updates
Support the site! Become a Diablo: IncGamers PAL - Remove ads and more!

US Senate report: Grass is green

Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by Dondrei, Sep 9, 2006.

  1. Dondrei

    Dondrei IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2005
    Messages:
    36,855
    Likes Received:
    30
    Trophy Points:
    467
    US Senate report: Grass is green

    I'm lousy at finding news articles on the net, can someone find a link to a decent paper?

    Didn't we do this already? Although one thing I hadn't heard before is that not only did Saddam not have explicit dealings with Al Qaeda, he also didn't turn a blind eye: he tried to capture Zarqawi in 2002 when he was in Iraq.

    I like the way the only rebuttal the White House has is that this is old news...
     
  2. maccool

    maccool IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2003
    Messages:
    3,904
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    165
    Well, the problem is that the OTF 'Republicans' are busy in the circle jerk of the ABC 9/11 drama thread. Ha ha, Clin-Ton! etc. That was Thursday's talking point.

    I watched Hannity on Friday just for the hilarity. It's neat watching the goalposts move. Strangely, the Senate finding was downplayed on the show. It was also absent from talk radio today. Must be more important things going on in the U.S. than lies at the upper levels of government.
     
  3. Dondrei

    Dondrei IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2005
    Messages:
    36,855
    Likes Received:
    30
    Trophy Points:
    467
    Well don't you know? We were never in Iraq for Al Qaeda and WMDs, it was all about toppling Saddam (because that's a valid casus belli) and bringing happy thoughts to the Middle East. Love that retconning.

    Actually, it's a good thing for the Republicans that Iraq turned into a breeding ground for terrorists or else people would start saying "So... remind me what this has to do with Al Qaeda and the War on Terror?".
     
  4. Stevinator

    Stevinator IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2003
    Messages:
    5,003
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    347
    I thought we were there to drag in all the terrorists in (so they wouldn't attack america) and establish a muslim friend (some say puppet regime) in a very strategic place. I thought establishing a strong presence in Iraq was a way to ensure we wouldn't be up poo creek with no paddle when the saudis are eventually overthrown and the Iranians go Dr. strangelove on Isreal. I thought this was only one small battle in a greater war against islamofasicsts, in hopes of bringing democracy to the region so the muslims wouldn't hate us so much. I thought we were there to show moderate muslims that they could be doing better things than supporting these crazies and please don't join them. I thought we knew from the beginning we'd be there a long time, we just didn't anticipate the amount of fighting we'd have to do. I also thought the Iraqis would bounce back faster and at least be helping restore the peace, sooner than they have been.

    I DID think there were WMDs, and I even wonder if something got snuck out, but I never really thought that was the focus of going there. the anti-war folk sure made it seem like WMDs were the big reason though. I guess there wasn't as much as i anticipated. I'm surprised that saddam had not at least managed the chemical agents we gave him and I'm surprised what little chemical agents he had were used so poorly. Also, I expected more than one vial of biological weapons.

    i still think going to iraq was a good move, that all the real reasons for going are still valid, though the emphasis has changed significantly. I'd like the place to get put together faster, because I really only wanted a presence there to be able to execute force in the region if necessary, not really actively engaged.

    True this old news, but I think your average joe doesn't really "get it", and the complexity of the situation is really lost on the masses. that's just like anything else i imagine.
     
  5. TonoTheHero

    TonoTheHero IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2003
    Messages:
    995
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    120
    I like your post Stevinator. Though I'm bothered by the conduct of this war from the very beginning I'm way more bothered about what would happen if the US were to cut and run. Which isn't an unheard of sentiment.
     
  6. Stevinator

    Stevinator IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2003
    Messages:
    5,003
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    347
    well i do my best to cut through the rhetoric and whatnot. if we can't be honest with ourselves and truely want to work towards a solution, we'll never get anywhere as a country or a species. Going to iraq solved a lot of problems, and honestly, as much as i supported it, I admit it caused some too. it's certainly not going as well as I'd have hoped, but nor it it going to lead to the downfall of America.
     
  7. Dondrei

    Dondrei IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2005
    Messages:
    36,855
    Likes Received:
    30
    Trophy Points:
    467
    You mean like the way it cut and run from Afghanistan to pursue a completely unrelated war?

    The reason people made it out to be all about WMDs is because that was the casus belli. That's what they spent all that time trying to convince the U.N. for. It doesn't matter what the domestic justification was, the Hawk's agenda of starting a core democracy in the Middle East (not to mention the even more ludicrous idea that it would actually be U.S.-friendly) is not a valid reason to start a war. Of course, no-one can stop you attacking whoever you feel like, but without a casus belli you have no justification (or at least an ostensible one) - that's why governments try so hard to get one. Image is important.

    Iraq is going nowhere. It was never even a problem until we invaded - Saddam had no WMDs and no ties to Al Qaeda, so how in hell does attacking him help the War on Terror? We should have:

    1. Finished the job in Afghanistan. I remind you that that forgotten country is currently experience the worst violence since the overthrow of the Taliban, thanks to resurgent Al Qaeda and Taliban forces.

    2. Remained ready to attack states that REALLY support terror networks and are REALLY intent on and able to produce WMDs. Like Iran for one. But since we pissed away all our money, manpower and legitimacy in Iraq we don't have to resources to do more than scowl at them.

    As far as the War on Terror goes, Iraq was a massive strategic blunder.
     
  8. Dondrei

    Dondrei IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2005
    Messages:
    36,855
    Likes Received:
    30
    Trophy Points:
    467
    Examples ?
     
  9. Drosselmeier

    Drosselmeier IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2003
    Messages:
    5,168
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    466
    Wasn't the point toet them to "bring it on!" Why would they care wwhether Zarqawi was there before or not? Or am I losing track of the alibi or something?
     
  10. Dondrei

    Dondrei IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2005
    Messages:
    36,855
    Likes Received:
    30
    Trophy Points:
    467
    The logic went:

    1. Iraq has WMDs.
    2. They like terrorists so they're going to give them to them.
    3. Thus toppling Saddam is part of the War on Terror.
     
  11. maccool

    maccool IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2003
    Messages:
    3,904
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    165
    So, we're not focusing on the lies of this administration anymore? Cool, let's ***** about semantics and grammar.

    Flim Springfield.


    Your verb tense is for ****. You might want to lay off the grammatical nit-picking for a day or two, lest you be seen as more of an asshat (in my eyes at least).

    Just sayin'.
    Kind regards.
     
  12. Bortaz

    Bortaz Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2003
    Messages:
    11,312
    Likes Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I love maccool. Truly. Madly. Deeply.
     
  13. Dondrei

    Dondrei IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2005
    Messages:
    36,855
    Likes Received:
    30
    Trophy Points:
    467
    Editing mistake.

    P.S. I'm a spelling nazi, not a grammar nazi. Do I have to explain my mandate again?
     
  14. Star Dust

    Star Dust IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2006
    Messages:
    1,125
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    105
    Therefore, we have a right to invade a sovereign nation.

    Here, I'll just make it easier....

    "I thought we were there to strategically remove our enemies. Therefore, we have a right to nuke that whole section of the globe."
     
  15. llad12

    llad12 IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2003
    Messages:
    6,189
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    466
    Up dry-crude creek without a paddle maybe ...

    Islamofascists ... ya gotta luv that term coined by the right wing bloggers :grin:

    Since the fall of the Soviets, we had to find somebody in order to justify our zeal for militarism and continued outrageous defense spending. Instead of a peace dividend for the end of the cold war, the crazy religious nuts hiding in caves were selected as our latest excuse.

    Nah ... the Bush administration stated that we would be hailed as liberators and given flowers by the Iraqis. It was going to be a real cake-walk.

    In fact, do you remember this one ...

    McSweeney

    It's good to see that the United States of Amnesia is alive and well.

    The WMD's were just an excuse for war Steve. An excuse for war that everybody could agree on ...

    The Bush administration knew all about Saddam's son-in-law's UN testimony The even used portions of his testimony to strengthen their own case.

    They just left that that one damning piece out of their propaganda ... that "all the weapons were destroyed".

    In addition, the UN inspectors in 2003 had found nothing ... nada ... zip. But the administration couldn't wait a few more months for them to complete their inspections. Summer was drawing near; we had the troops massed at the border, and the long awaited plan for the invasion of Iraq was in place.

    The war was imminent ... because they wanted it to be.

    Valid only if you believe that the reason for invading Iraq was command and control of the area and its petroleum resources.

    Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces, and Resources for a New Century

    Is it more clear now?

    How about this:

    reprinted from the NYT


    Seems so ...


     
  16. bladesyz

    bladesyz IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2005
    Messages:
    2,027
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    255
    You do realize that Iraq is just a training ground for Al-Qaeda and other arab terrorist cells? Even if they get driven out of Iraq, you'll end up with hundreds of veteran terrorist cells who have had combat experience against American military tactics.

    I'm sure the Russians would love to have a strong presence in the Middle East as well. Does that mean they can go invade Kuwait now?

    That kind of failed... miserably.

    Oh yeah, Iraq is such a role model right now.

    That's kind of a crucial detail there. Going there on a vacation for a long time is "being there for a long time" too.
     
  17. SaroDarksbane

    SaroDarksbane IncGamers Site Pal

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2003
    Messages:
    8,563
    Likes Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    467
    What he said.
    Now we're left with something like:

    1. Topple Saddam.
    2. ???
    3. Profit!
     
  18. Dondrei

    Dondrei IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2005
    Messages:
    36,855
    Likes Received:
    30
    Trophy Points:
    467
    *Steals Saro's underpants*
     

Share This Page