and even that's a stretch. unfortunately for the libs, this is getting more difficult every day

"and even that's a stretch"
Okay, I'll give you that. . .It was a stretch on my part. . .I was trying to be nice.

You know, these Bush-bashers are having an off day. ;)

YOu're more the mono-tone anti-US crowd category. kidding.

:D :D :D :D :D

With regard to the "Liberal's revising history" - I find it the other way. Conservatives are rewriting it.

I still remember when the rationale for war was a 45 minute WMD deployment time and imminent nuclear capability. I still remember most of the world having misgivings about a war earlier this year. Bush was (and remains) hasty. He isn't a bad man, IMO. He just favours the US above all others, at (apparently) almost any cost.

Generally speaking, liberals don't like that. They see the bigger picture - what lies beyond the current conflict ;)

Hmmm, Cam you're lack of balance is showing.

Clearly many sides are attempting to write & rewrite history.

Again, the thing that gets me is the "end justifies the means" used by the anti-Bush crowd. They will attempt to rewrite in Saddams favor if it will bring Bush down a notch. (ie ''unjustified cuz you cant find the WMD - -nah-nah-n'-nah-nah")

better at the bigger picture. :rolleyes:

I'm not a Saddam apologist, but I still don't understand "why now?". The three reasons that people offer for us going into Iraq were:

1. Iraq has WMD, and will use them sooner rather than later.

2. Saddam is a horrible despot, and we have to save the Iraqi people.

3. Iraq supports terrorists.

Reason 1 seems to be wrong, either due to bad intelligence, or wishful thinking. People make mistakes, but lets ackowledge them. As for 2, this clearly is the case. But it is also the case in plenty of other countries around the world. Same with #3. So again, why Iraq, and why now?

Hmmm, Cam you're lack of balance is showing. Clearly many sides are attempting to write & rewrite history. better at the bigger picture. :rolleyes:

Yeah I know, but you (or someone else) said one way, so I said the other. Both sides are guilty of history rewrites, to some extent. Much like supporting a sports team (do you ever notice your own team breaking the rules?), everyone is one-eyed.

Again, the thing that gets me is the "end justifies the means" used by the anti-Bush crowd.

Seriously, I see this as the post-war Bush supporter rationale - there are no WMD, the war cost a lot, the UN didn't want us to invade, but the end justifies the means.

They will attempt to rewrite in Saddams favor if it will bring Bush down a notch. (ie ''unjustified cuz you cant find the WMD - -nah-nah-n'-nah-nah")

I must reiterate the position of most every liberal (and other person) who didn't support the war. We are happy (delighted!) that Saddam was deposed (and subsequently caught) so easily. But, Todd's questions stand...

...because in February, the UN didn't say "you may never invade Iraq". They said "wait for more proof". It would have come eventually, and if nothing else, the last 9 months have proved Saddam wasn't much of a threat to anyone but his own people.

And not supporting the war does not make one a Saddam apologist or anti-American.

Yeah, but if not supporting the war does not make you anti-american and a saddam and bin laden lover what leg do the pro-war folks have left to stand on when trying to attack their opponents? I guess attacking their enemies with flawed logic and falsehoods is all these people know.

While saddam is a bad guy so is bush and a lot of other world leaders to boot. It does not mean I am for our enemies dropping bombs on our cities and shooting into crouds of anti-invader protestors. The same should apply for the other people of the world.

oooohboyohboyohboy. I don't mouth off much here, but this time I just can't resist. so here goes
had the liberals had their way, the status-quo would have been preserved, the inspectors would still be running around Iraq looking like fools on wild-goose chases, thousands of Iraquis would still be dying at the hands of a despot and his two sons, Russia and France would still be profiteering from the so-called Iraqui oil embargo, and terrorism would still be getting a substantial financial boost from the coffers of Saddam's regime. this, kind sir, would have been the "bigger picture" that would have prevailed had the US not intervened. a reality that the libs were too unwilling to see in their abject hate of a man trying to protect the interests of his fellow americans

"there are no WMD:" don't cash those chips in just yet ;)

"the war cost a lot:" freedom always does. but it's still tons cheaper than sitting there doing a U.N. (i.e. nothing)

"the UN didn't want us to invade:" ***** in one hand and want in the other - see which gets fuller first. oh yeah, and I want a million bucks
at the cost of more dead Iraquis, more time for Saddam to prepare himself, and further chances of terrorism. ever noticed that things have been relatively quiet on the terrorist front lately? this isn't because Saddam (or anyone else for that matter) turned out not to be a threat, but rather because the terrorist world took note and came to the realization that the US doesn't screw around any longer
I'd like to see you use that logic the next time a neighbor (yours or otherwise) takes his drunken rage out on his own family. where's that liberal idealism when it's actually appropriate?
absolutely not. however, it doesn't make one the sharpest knife in the drawer either :D (eeeasy with the flamethrower, there. I said 'one' not 'you' :D )

ANYHOOOO. having said all that, Cam, 350, Todd, or anyone else with leftist leanings for that matter... should any of you ever dare to lose your way into my neighborhood, be forewarned. I shall have no choice but to drag you down to the local pub and settle this issue properly over a few pints or Scotch and sodas. (or lemondrops, if you prefer) I know some of you are likely to go into epileptic seizures should I even dare attempt an invocation of any deity, much less a Christian one, but here goes anyway: God bless our freedom of speech, boys!

best of health to you all and see you on the road!


and oh yeah, those meandering with a bit of a rightward tilt - Wayne, tabs (sometimes) etc, are invited too. Island said he was buying :D

almost forgot. Wayne, I do so wish that YOU were George Junior. hell, I'd go into the shoe business just to have the privilege of selling you the boots for doing the job!

That's your opinion! The inspectors looked like fools on a wild goose chase because the WMD are proving difficult to find (we disagree on why). Thousands of Iraqis may well have been dying, but there are other genocides and politicides in the world*.

And despite recent information which has come to light about Iraq's links to Al Qaeda, I am unconvinced they were a major contributor (again, people within other nations are much more guilty). They contributed to terrorism in the Middle East, yes, but again I understand they were not the greatest contributor. I actually suspect time may prove me wrong on this one (that Saddam had somewhat strong links), but I challenge anyone to prove that the US and UK knew this with the same certainty when they invaded Iraq.

I'm not defending Saddam, I'm highlighting that the Bush govt read what it wanted to into the "facts" to prepare its bigger picture.

I guess the question is "do I think Iraq would be better off if Saddam was still in power". The simple answer is that I think the world would better off if the UN-led process had run its course (I view the deposing of Saddam as a foregone conclusion over time). But what is done is done, and I hope that the remaining resistance in Iraq goes quickly. More so, I hope that whatever governance the Iraqis choose for themselves is one that stand the test of time and is just.

This is a good point. I am not convinced that there was a case for Saddam getting stronger, but its not like I am the CIA here. Did the pre-war evidence (if viewed objectively) really suggest he was an increasing threat?

I'm not so sure about this. It is just that there is other stuff in the news (ie, the war and rebuild)? I'm pretty sure that the situation in Israel/Palestine isn't improving much, and that there have been ongoing attacks of various kinds throughout the Middle East and South East Asia (note attack on Pakistan President today). I agree that, other than the terrorist (guerilla?) attacks against Coalition troops in Iraq, there may have been a reduction in attacks against US interests.

Again, this is the "killing his own people argument". I am very glad it has stopped, I am very sad it continues in other parts of the world. If the US is looking to sweep brutal dictators/regimes from the world, I hope the broom is very large.

Amen to that Brother ronin :D :D :D :D :D

* I've got no idea how good that site is as a source, I just went for quickest and easiest.

He who has Saddam in his poession controls what information becomes public (meaning no info about the Bushy family will come out and only what the USA wants known will be made public) If the revelations about France, germany, Russia are daming..instead of making it public the USA will use it to twist their arms to get what it wants.. if that fails it can always be made public...I thought I had made that clear to all?

Ahh Nostaus your on the right track...if none of the reasons you listed above seem to be plausable....then you must look farther afield for the reasons that do work. Everybody seems to be stuck on the reasons that they have been told about.

Bushy could have played the game with the UN until 2005, he didn't have to risk his re-election chanchs. So what made the invasion of Irak imperative in 2003? The House of Saud falling would have.

People in the USA have become ignorant...dumbed down by 50 years of inane SitComs and Super Bowls. The mass media is now in the hands of conglomerates...AOL, Viacom, Westinghouse, Disney, Rupert etc they are very carefull not to disturb the fatted calf that the American people read that as CONSUMERS have become. 911 style events worry people and worried people DON"T spend money.

I don't believe in conspiracys in general...except JFK...I believe most of the information is out there and has been told at least once. Sometimes it is told so fast that if you blink your eyes you will have missed it. For instance it was reported that Saddam was out of Irak and was on his way to a US military base in Qatar. That was denied very quickly by the White House, and the issue was dropped. But have any of you wondered where the US interogates it's Terrorist prisoners...as in the number 3 AL Queda Mohemd Khalif (sp) we caught in March and keep the special ones detained. Well now U know.

One of the big reasons why there hasn't been any repeat performances of 911 is that the Security Forces of the Western world are doing their job. They are ELIMINATING the the oposition.

Oh like I said I just make this stuff up, I can't help it, if it just happens to turn out to be true!

of course it is! and a damned good one too :)
once again. just because there may be other murders happening across town or in another state doesn't preclude me from stopping one that is right in front of me. I reiterate, where's the idealism when it's sorely needed??
whether Saddam was the greatest contributor or not is not the point, that he was a SUBSTANTIAL contributor is
say what??? how would the world have been better off with more uncerainty, chances for terrorism and continued genocide? and in what way may I ask is the world any worse off now that this situation has begun to be dealt with?? (just curious :D) remember one other thing that most people are wont to overlook: Saddam did have more than ten years to straighten out his act and comply with UN resolutions, which he never did. this was also a large reason why it was time to say "enough is enough" agreed. what the media decides to put in front of its audience does in large part influence and shape said audience's "world view." however, the motive of the daily bombings in Israel is somewhat independent of what has happened with Saddam and the attacks in Pakistan and SEA are at the moment being purveyed by those that do not immediately fear the wrath of the US
and that's not looking either to the left or to the right, but straight ahead. onward and upward, my friend ;)


and oh yeah, lest I forget: LMAO, you opportunist you :D

The United Nations has proven itself impotent with its refusal to back up anything it says.

I used to think quite highly of the UN, but now I don't see any reason for its existance.

Inner workings of The Oracle...
 

I h4x3d the Oracle and discovered his (her?) secret. I was going to post it on my warez site, but figured it would make more sense to put it here:

(the SQL-aware among you please forgive my syntactical transgressions in the spirit of humor)

<i>"He (Bush) isn't a bad man, IMO. He just favours the US above all others, at (apparently) almost any cost."</i>

Now that's weird. I favor the US above all others too!!! But I AM a bad man ....... ;)

Per the BBC

The troops who came across Saddam Hussein on Saturday were offered "negotiations", spokesman Major Brian Reed said on Monday.

"I am Saddam Hussein, I am the president of Iraq and I want to negotiate," the former leader was quoted as saying in English from his pit.

The soldiers, according to Major Reed, replied with the words "President Bush sends his regards".

I think we can now consider those nuts kicked. :)

Negotiate what? The surrender of his hole! This should be a good lesson for the world, don't mess with the USA or see what will happen to you.

Saddam's line reminds me of the scene out of Monty Python's Holy Grail with the Black Knight.

Then again, knowing how much BS is coming out of the current administration nowadays whos to say if this dialog really occured or if it is just another case of some propaganda being released for psychological effect.

once again. just because there may be other murders happening across town or in another state doesn't preclude me from stopping one that is right in front of me. I reiterate, where's the idealism when it's sorely needed??

It was hardly right in front of you - it was more that it was the easiest target. The disturbing part is not the will to depose a murderous dictator (which is noble) - it is the willingness to bypass the UN to do so.

whether Saddam was the greatest contributor or not is not the point, that he was a SUBSTANTIAL contributor is

Yes, but you can't say this in one breath and then below say that the Palestine/Israel conflict is not really related to Iraq (most of Saddam's money went to Palestine, apparently).

how would the world have been better off with more uncerainty, chances for terrorism and continued genocide? and in what way may I ask is the world any worse off now that this situation has begun to be dealt with??

I think it is much more uncertain now. It has certainly cost the world (mostly the US and UK) and the Iraqi people dearly, and international relations and the UN structure have taken a pretty nasty blow through the process too. This seems to me to be much greater than the amount of genocide and any impact to terrorism.

this was also a large reason why it was time to say "enough is enough"

Although not in the UN (and world opinion).


Curt - the key part is "at any cost".

Outa todays newspaper..France is going to work to forgive Iraks debts that off the AP wire.