hmmm, Calling a clearly legal, multi-lateral war, the opposite . . .well I suppose that I was wrong to call it lies & spin . .. .when clearly they should have just be called lies. (you gave a great example of spin with "it may have been ..")

repost:
don't forget that the UN unanimously voted to give Iraq a final ultimatum. . ..US, UK, & AU troops amassed around Iraq. . .and the French, with their "Victorious Nation" status, PULLED THE UN RUG RIGHT OUT, UNDERMININING the goodfaith efforts of the US, UK, & AU.

Sure Germany was against action too, but even though they KICKED the french butts in WW2, they do not have "Victorious Nation" (veto) status. . .we all know why. So you may want to get off your high horse, and stop pushing rhetoric like; " most of the world/UN was against the War"

btw, I'm still waiting for that long list of countries (or just one) that thought Saddam didn't stink.

Saddam's violation of the 17 resolutions was enough to go to war

Saddam shooting at US planes was enough to go to war

Saddam gassing his own people was enough to go to war

Saddam's mass graves were enough to go to war

What would it have taken for you people? Had everything that's transpired so far happened under Clinton's watch, you'd be praising the efforts!

Sure, its just HOW Bush went to war, on the cheap! 100,000 GI's when the Army Chiefs said they needed almost 400,000.
I have never been against them taking out Saddam just the way they have gone about it.
IF we had enough GI's/Men on the ground from around the world to secure the country then I really think the reconstruction would be well underway. They could have put all those unemployed Iraqis to work and who wants to blow themselves up when you have money in your pocket.
Elections could have happened by now with a real Iraqi elected government in place.
Ah, to dream....instead we have this effin mess due to piss poor planning.

Geoff

Get over it already!!!
We went to war, we spent bazzillions of dollars, did we accomplish our mission? Yes, and no, the world is a little safer without Saddam and his regime. But, its just a matter of time before another "wanna-be God" crawls out from under his sand pile and poses an "imminent threat" to the US and ROW.

Kerry scares me. I'm not sure the US can afford to appoint such an optimistic leader.
Kerry reminds me too much of the guy sitting on the fence waiting.


Next!!

I just disagree. Citing resolution 1441 as the defence, but not taking a vote to legitimise the action under 1441 (because it would lose) is dishonest.

Bryan - the selectiveness of the US in pursuing regimes/countries which are "bad" means that at very least you have to accept you will be criticised.

Meanwhile... did the war accomplish the mission (against terrorism)? Maybe, maybe not...

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,135082,00.html

And what happened to rebuilding iraq (27c/$):

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,135111,00.html

In response to your framing the (in)significant number of the 30 odd who were part of the "Coalition of the Willing" . . .it is pertinent to point-out the unanimous vote in the UN.

!!!Unanimously the UN countries say that they are for forcing Saddam . . . they have to say this as the problem is that HUGE . ..that OBVIOUS.

You see, EVERYONE saw the problem (thus the citation)

Because NOT everyone acted (appropriately) with troops does not make our efforts less legitamate. Quite the contrary. WE stepped-up when others wwwwhhhhiiiiiiiiiinnnned.

As we know now, the French wanted to appear that they were on the right side of the problem, but were clearly on the take. . . in bed with Saddam.

Now THAT is dishonest.



http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1097560960.jpg

Nah, it's just the difference between the American way (which others share) of solving "problems" and "my" way .

Seriously - peace on this one. I disagree, I see where you're coming from, but philosophically I can't handle the rationale. I believe there was a better way...

And enough French bashing - bash the Russians before them. They took a hell of a lot more oil vouchers, pretty clearly at govt level, and Putin's current politicing is kinda scary...

Here you go. We're here squibling over GOP talking points and nobody has posted what was actually said:

No president, through all of American history, has ever ceded -- and nor would I -- the right to preempt in any way necessary, to protect the United States of America," the Democrat told moderator Jim Lehrer during the debate.

"But if and when you do it, Jim, you've got to do it in a way that passes the, the test, that passes the global test where your countrymen, your people, understand fully why you're doing what you're doing, and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons."

It makes perfect sense to me.
We'll do what we gotta do, but we'll try our best to act responsibly with our friends, neighbors, and countrymen. Why is that so difficult for people to understand?

Hummmmph. Fat chance.

Stand proud Matt! You are apparently the one person who understands what the F**k John sKerry is saying.

John Kerry's new ad

Edited for content - please refrain from personal attacks. -Z-man.

I understood Kerry just fine. He said that if we acted pre-emptively/unilaterally it would have to pass "the global test", in other words, have been the right thing to do under all of the circumstances.

Maybe you Republicans, (and non-Republican rabid Bush apologists-Island), :rolleyes: , need to pass the "Global reading/listening test"..... :D

Exactly, Cam! :)

One can NOT prove to the world . . all of the world.
There are just too many conflicting interests. (of course, no-matter for John Kerry! -- HE HAS A PLAN! ):rolleyes:


Hey speeder :D

This is for you
:
:
:
V

Exactly, Cam! :)

I still prefer Kerry's way ;) - BTW love the sig change.

What exactly are "Army Chiefs"???? And where do you get this information?

Horse.......laughing. :D :D

Only me and 50% of all Americans.
One "t", one. M A T

"The real point about Kerry's "global test" comment, though is that it contradicts what he said immediately before. Here, again, is what Kerry said:
No president, through all of American history, has ever ceded, and nor would I, the right to pre-empt in any way necessary to protect the United States of America. But if and when you do it, Jim, you have to do it in a way that passes the test, that passes the global test, where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you're doing what you're doing and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons.

This is one of those "but"-head remarks we noted Friday. Kerry is trying to have it both ways: to reserve "the right to pre-empt in any way necessary" while also insisting on "the global test." Reader Ruth Papazian offers some insight on what this really means:

It's the placement of the conditional but that is most revealing of Kerry's true inclinations regarding pre-emptive use of force against countries harboring terrorists.

Consider these two statements:

(a) I will let you go to the concert, but I want you to clean your room.

(b) I want you to clean your room, but I will let you go to the concert.

In statement (a), permission to go to the concert is conditional upon cleaning your room. In statement (b), permission to go to the concert is not conditional upon cleaning your room.

Consider Kerry's "global test" statement with the phrases before and after the conditional "but" flipped:

You've got to do it in a way that passes the global test, but no president, through all of American history, has ever ceded, and nor would I, the right to pre-empt in any way necessary to protect the United States of America.

The first statement suggests that the historical right of pre-emptive action by a U.S. president is conditional upon first convincing the rest of the world that our actions are justified. The second statement suggests that while global considerations are important, the right of pre-emptive action by a U.S. president will never be conditioned upon whether the rest of the world thinks our reasons are legitimate.

The man who would utter the second statement will not hesitate to pull the trigger. The man who uttered the first statement will."

-James Taranto WSJ

Leaders who didn't need no stinkin' Global Test:

Hitler
Alexander the Great
Saddam Hussein
Stalin
Bin Ladin
Rwandan Rebel warlords
George W. ("with us or against us") Bush

:rolleyes:

Weak-assed leaders who passed the "Global Test".....

Franklin Delano Roosevelt
Theodore Roosevelt
Winston Churchill
John F. Kennedy (Cuban Missile crisis)
Bill Clinton (Kosovo and Somalia)
Harry Truman (Korea)
etc..........

:cool:

Army Chief's of Staff....I have read it several places. One place you will love was in Richard Clarke's book.