Axiom Home Page Forums General Discussion The Water Cooler OT: politics

Yes we're at war-this group is floundering through it with no apparent real strategy. This isn't a strong President-he's a floundering, ill-advised man. If he'd put as much effort into a real strategy in Iraq as he does discrediting Kerry's Vietnam record (as he did with John McCain 4 years ago) we'd be much better off. The only moderate in the entire cabinet is Colin Powell and who in Washington listens to him? He's been hung out to dry on the war issues and obviously been reduced to the role of a Cheney-Bush mouthpiece.

Can you really, with any conviction, say that we're at war in Iraq because of 9/11. I supported and applauded Bush, as did most of the rest of the world, going into Afghanistan post 9/11. Now show me a connection between Saddam and 9/11. Is the world a better place without Saddam? You bet! Do I feel any safer here in Minnesota knowing that Saddam is under lock and key? No way. Are we making progress against bin Laden and his cohorts or are we just further pissing them off and breeding more militant radicals who hate America and what America stands for. We've lost the good will that the rest of the world afforded us post 9/11. The Bush/Cheney blind rush to war in Iraq has cost us that. If we intend on saving the world from all evil we had better get to Sudan, North Korea and countless other areas. Can we afford to do that? What are the real costs of all this going to be? Can our economy withstand the pressures of Bush's deficit spending as well as his tax cuts? Who's going to pay? Probably not me, but I worry that my children will ultimately get saddled with the end results of this administration's policies.

As far as "recklessly giving power to someone with no resolve". I find it reckless that this country gave power to a man who has mockingly attacked Kerry and McCain's service record, but whose only apparent recollection of serving this country as a young man, is that he visited a dentist at an army post in Alabama. The thought of transition of power during a time of conflict is unsettling, but this President has not, in my eyes, earned the right to a second term.

Jorge... We will try one thing at a time. First, We found 4 different terrorist training camps in Iraq, one of which had a passenger compartment from a jumbo jet for training. So, Is it your position that Iraq was not involved in harboring and training terrorists ?

I wasn't going to walk into this fray, but this issue has brought me out into the open. Considering the hatred of Americans throughout the Middle East, every country in the region could be suspect of harboring terrorists. Let's be objective here, and put ourselves in the shoes of the average Iraqi. We've been bombing them for 20 years, so it wouldn't be surprising that certain individuals would chose to take action against the US. The question I ask is why Iraq? I don't trust that the Bush Administration is going to tell the public the truth in regards to this. Are people so afraid of a possible terrorist threat that the President making up intelligence reports to start a war with a weak, middle eastern dictatorship isn't even questioned. I, for one, am appalled by this. We impeach a President for lying about a sexual adventure. We glorify a President who lies to start a war. I'm totally stunned by this.

Well... You did walk into it. Clinton was impeached for lying under oath about a sexual harassment case brought by a former employee. Lying under oath to keep one's self from being convicted or ruled against is called perjury.

Now... as for the war in Iraq... Name some specifics that were lies. By the way, this is the 9th question I have asked in this thread, with the first 8 never answered.

Do any of you watch the The Daily Show with Jon Stewart? I think it does an decent job of being neutral(it does lean to the left) and putting things in to a good perspective. It is also freaking funny.

It is a bit left, and is often hilarious... Dennis Miller is a bit right, and is also a load of fun. Notice neither of them gets into hatrid... a good thing.

It is freakin' funny but that show is far from neutral - the core philosophy seems somewhere between communist and nihilist.
Jorge, we have debated the Iraq war to death. Turbodog summed it up very well, I believe. Maybe someone can link to that excellent post by Turbodog?
Regardless, if not for 9-11 we would not be in Iraq today. The war against the bad guys is not confined to one country or one group of people. The whole region - from Morocco to Afghanistan - celebrated wildly the killing of thousands of innocents on 9-11. There is a long history of terrorism against the west by Muslim fanatics. They target civilians.
The enemy is not one man (Osama), or one group (alQaeda), but a radical, unchecked political culture bent on the destruction of western civilization. Given time, money and technology they will likely succeed.
Scary as it sounds, Iraq is a good start. We need to follow up with determined efforts to overthrow all the Muslim totalitarian theocracies, raids against the Iranian and Pakistani nuclear programs, and develop alternatives to middle eastern oil. Forget about peace talks - they only use them to catch their breath, re-arm, and re-deploy. That's my opinion.

Craigsub -

During the State the Union Address on January 28, 2003, President Bush said:

Bush: The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.

On Dick Cheney's request Joseph Wilson went to Africa to investigate this issue. It was his determination that Iraq did NOT try to buy "yelow cake" uranium from Niger, and in fact all the paper work pointing to the fact were forgeries. He reported this back to Dick. So one of two things happened.

1) George lied during the State of the Union address.

or

2) He didn't know about Mr. Wilson's trip, and the results of his findings.

I'm not sure which scenerio is scarier.

I do find is very troubling as well that upon Mr. Wilson's speaking out against Mr. Bush's remarks, his wife is "outed" as an undercover CIA agent. I watched George on the news laughing about it, saying with a big smile on his face "we'll probably never find out who did it..."

You asked.

Ah, Spiff, you have been too busy with your new home. A couple months ago the British investigation by Lord Such&such revealed that Saddam had indeed sent a group of homies to buy uranium (sounds bad, but apparently the stuff is harmless) from that country in Africa. He had also sent a delegation to Afghanistan for some reason - I forget what.

Spiff....From the transcript: "The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) confirmed in the 1990's that Saddam Hussein had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a nuclear weapon and was working on five different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb. The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

Notice YOU left out that FAR more telling phrase regarding the IAEA's belief at the time. The British intel was a minor portion of the evidence. Both the UN and the IAEA were convinced that Iraq had an on going nuclear weapons program at the time.

There have also been ample writings that Wilson's wife had lobbied for him to get this job... and that he was a long time Democratic Party supporter...

There is also a lot of evidence that Wlson was the one lying...