Steeler

Flashback: Saddam Hussein must prove that he does not have nuclear weapons. If he cannot PROVE this, and I mean PROVE it, then logically we must assume that he has them.

__________________

El_Gringo_Grande

Exactly!

But how that assumption leads to the invasion and conquering of a soveriegn nation...

I am not suggesting congress empeach Bush until we know he actually broke the law.

But I did write my congresmen and senators letting them know that if they do decide to do it based on the facts, I would support them. This, I hope, will prod them to push the administration to be a bit more open of what they actually did. (Of course I am from Oklahoma so that was probably a waste of my time. Coburn at least talks about protecting civil rights but he so hard core republican it kinda scary.)

El_Gringo_Grande

If you have a distrust of me (or more generally the members here distrust one another), then that is logical and not silly at all.

I hope that that is not the case. I, for one, trust those of TG to not post things just to inflame another person. (I know real debate can inflame passions. That is understandable and very different from 'flamebaite' as I understand the term.)

And you?


Oh, and wanted to add.

Besides the arrogant and Evil Bush there is also the possiblity of the Incompetant Bush.

That is probably the answer right there.


(I use the word 'Evil' very loosly. Like in Dr. Evil. Don't really think there is such a thing in absolute terms.)

CingularDuality

Inaccurate: Nuclear weapons were never the focus, although the threat of future capability was there. WMDs, in general, WERE the focus. He proved that he had them when he gassed Iran and committed genocide on the Kurds. The onus was on him to prove that they were destroyed.

Don't you hate it when facts get in the way of making a point? Nice try, though!

__________________

Become a supporting member! -- Shop at the Tactical Market!

Take the world's smallest political quiz! "I was touched by His Noodly Appendage."
TacticalGamer TX LAN/BBQ Veteran:

Steel_Penguin

Isn't that the definition of truthiness?

__________________
_____________________

CingularDuality

Indeed!

__________________

Become a supporting member! -- Shop at the Tactical Market!

Take the world's smallest political quiz! "I was touched by His Noodly Appendage."
TacticalGamer TX LAN/BBQ Veteran:

Pickle

I understand everyone who is angry because they believe they were lied to about WMDs. You should also be angry at congress who also believe they were there and subsequently voted for the invasion. Facts getting in the way again, sorry. I personally am disappointed they were not found. Well, a few sarin and mustard gas shells were found but nothing of real consequence. I am disappointed because all of this bi-partisan nonsense wouldn't be happening.

However, let us not forget the nuclear facility in Baghdad that was destroyed in 1981 by the Israelis. Why was it destroyed? Because it was about to go online and Sadam is not exactly of friend of Israel or anyone non-Arab. I believe another or the same facility was bombed again by the US in 1991. And even a few Arabs were fair game to him. See Kuwait and subsequent invasion. See Iran/Iraq war that began with Sadam invading Iran in 1980.

We also can not ignore the tens and tens of thousand of his own people that he has killed. Many were tortured and raped. Many killed were killed by gassing. See sarin and mustard gas shells mentioned above.

Note: This father and child are NOT taking a nap in the middle of the street!
http://kurdistan.org/Multimedia/Iraq.jpg

Then there was the destruction of the Southern Marshes that pushed an entire Shiite population to the brink of starvation in retribution for their speaking out against Sadam.

Bottom line is that if Bush would have said, "This Sadam fellow is bad news." **List all bad things and more from above** "We need to take him out because of what he has done and for what he might do based on what he has done and said." I would have been okay with that.

Mistakes have been made but none so egregious that warrant this war not being undertaken.

__________________

Steeler

That is not a fact, that is an opinion. And you have just completely reversed your own argument. First you say that trying to prove a negative (prove you are not being disrespectful) is silly, and now you are saying trying to prove a negative (prove you do not have or are not thinking of having a weapon) is a valid demand. Which is it? In either case what is the degree of proof? What would satisfy your demand?

The WMD events you cite are from 10-20 years ago. You are leaving out the Gulf War and subsequent embargo period, during which the Iraqi military and infrastructure collapsed, practically negating their warmaking ability (and impoverishing their population).
If you present me with some real facts, I'll let you know.
That would have been our best bet toward true coalition-building. As was the case in 1991, occupying Baghdad and removing Saddam was not the roadblock to our staying in the region. The consequences of occupation were just too deadly. James Baker, Schwartzkopf(sp?), and President Bush all said later that the problems inherent in being an occupying force in a hostile land would fracture the coalition, leave the US vulnerable to a protracted solo military engagement, and empower local anti-US elements, namely Iran.

Nobody was singling Hussein's praises at the UN. But the militancy and false urgency of our pre-invasion stance probably lost us a lot of support we would have gotten if we had sought more diplomatic and economic solutions. Say, ferreting out the Hussein money scandals to start with and reducing the bargaining power of the opposing nations

But I sense that we have once again drifted off-topic. Impeachment! Or whatever.

__________________

munchkin

Cing, do you watch the Colbert Report?

__________________

Pickle

All of these issues being discussed are relevant to the impeachment discussion because many people think he should be impeached for "lying". And those "lies" are what led to the war.

Sorry about the pic CD. I honestly didn't think it was "shocking" as you put it. Perhaps I am getting calloused. I will be more careful in the future.

__________________

CingularDuality

Come on now, let's try to think straight here. We've got two cases here. In one, a leader that has admitted to and that is known to have possessed weapons of mass destruction is ordered by the United Nations to destroy the weapons and facilities that make the weapons and to provide proof that they're destroyed. In the second case, a leader is assumed to be "doing evil things" and is expected to provide proof that he is not violating any one's rights. The first case is requesting proof of a definite event. The second case is demanding proof of a theoretical absolute.

So what? Tell me, why was there an embargo in the first place?

__________________

Become a supporting member! -- Shop at the Tactical Market!

Take the world's smallest political quiz! "I was touched by His Noodly Appendage."
TacticalGamer TX LAN/BBQ Veteran:

CingularDuality

Never heard of it. I don't watch TV, though...

Edit: I just went HERE and watched the John Stossel interview. Decent comedy. I like the news anchor theme! Funny.

__________________

Become a supporting member! -- Shop at the Tactical Market!

Take the world's smallest political quiz! "I was touched by His Noodly Appendage."
TacticalGamer TX LAN/BBQ Veteran:

Steeler

How do you provide proof of the weapons' destruction? It's not like you can bring me their heads on a stick. And when we didn't find them right away, Rumsfeld said "well, they must be in Syria." So why the Hell aren't we invading Syria? Shouldn't they now have to prove that they don't have Saddam's weapons stashed somewhere? Where does the burden of proof end?

In the spying case, I agree, you cannot reasonably ask the administration to prove that no one is misusing the assets available to them. But as citizens, this is a matter of policy that we have some control over - how much power do we give the executive to conduct surveillance on citizens. If Congress has given them this much and they take this much, then we have a problem. If the US government can "pre-emptively" invade another country on the grounds that they could attack us in the future, then certainly the US populace can "pre-emptively" deny our own governent the power to abuse us in the future.

__________________

ScratchMonkey

Even better proof is that the US gave him the WMD's, back when we were all chums.

The "lying" is perhaps really misdirection: Bush says WMD, everyone thinks "nukes", but he really means chemical and possibly biological weapons. The media doesn't know how to spin the latter into panic, so by saying "WMD" instead of "chemical weapons", Bush gets the popular go-ahead to invade because the average rube thinks we're about to get nuked.

__________________
Sig

CingularDuality

You've got to be kidding me... Look, this is just getting silly. If you can't see the difference in situations, then I don't know what to say without being disrespectful.

Ah, we totally agree here. Fortunately, IMO, despite the media blitz, it appears that the American people aren't interested in such a pre-emptive strike over this issue.

__________________

Become a supporting member! -- Shop at the Tactical Market!

Take the world's smallest political quiz! "I was touched by His Noodly Appendage."
TacticalGamer TX LAN/BBQ Veteran: