Presidential Debate thread

[WayAbvPar]

Just to go back to the debate for a moment- the notes Bush took during the debate have been published:

[Nebu]

Science knows jack and shit about the big questions of life. All it knows is what it doesn't know and a series of amusing parlor tricks.

You're Amish, aren't you?  If so, step away from the computer before you go to hell.

[Shannow]

My only fear of the unknown is that it will be depressingly boring.

[Paelos]

I believe there is a God because I can feel his guiding force in my life. I don't believe in simple fate, circumstance, or luck. I don't think the interconnected universe just happened to be tossed together so well on a mathematical random change that even the best minds can't explain it. Some will say religion is for people who fear the unknown. I say there is a God shaped hole in everyone that they try to fill with a lot of stuff that doesn't fit. I feel sorry that people try to fill it with spouses, children, friends, family, drugs, sex, liquor, or even intellectual pursuits when that only leaves them wanting more.

I could never have peace in a Godless world, despite the ideals of the "moral atheist." Or as Dostoyevsky put it, "Anything is permissible if there is no God."

[Dark Vengeance]

Let's note what this means:
1) No WMD stockpiles in his possession at the time of the invasion
2) No active WMD programs at the time of the invasion
3) He did have the capability to produce WMD

3 is not true. He did not have the capability to produce WMD. He had the capability to restart the programs, which could THEN produce WMD.

He didn't have the capability, but he was capable of getting the capability. Is that what we call an imminent threat?

The fact is, the santions were working. Lack of WMD and WMD programs are proof of that.

Lack of *active* WMD programs....don't forget that very important word.

You're trying to take it one step further than even the report does. If they or Kerry's camp could say conclusively that Hussein was 100% incapable of producing WMD, they would have.

Thus far, they haven't.

Edit: "and Bush's crowd has been saying he was in material breach and had the capability to produce WMD in response for quite some time as well"

But, that's not all it said. Bush went on national TV and said he was confident the WMD existed and would be found. He didn't say what we would find was some facilities in disrepair that could be all polished up if sanctions were lifted.

You can't pretend the administration has taken the same position on this the whole time. Remember how our troops were supposed to be careful because the Iraqis were getting ready to release chemical weapons near Bahgdad?

If by the "Bush crowd" you mean "Geoge Bush on national television" your statement is incorrect. That's not disputable, the transcipts are available.

It's also available in text that Bush conceded that our intelligence was flawed, and that it is his intention to find out why. Just today, Kerry pulled out what appears to be the latest move in his campaign, the 'liar liar' attack. In all fairness, Edwards kicked this off in full force against Cheney.

That's an interesting line to cross. It's one thing to say that your opponent is wrong, or that he's confused, or that he made a mistake....it's another thing entirely to say he intentionally mislead, that he 'fictionalized', and that the adminsitration 'is not being straight with America'.

I'm curious to see how that plays with voters. Particularly on Iraq, he has to come up with a motive....why was Bush so driven to attack that he'd do this? With the rest, he could say 'he lied to cover his own mistakes'....but on accusing Bush of fictionalizing the reason for invading Iraq, he has to come up with another answer. Frankly, with under 30 days remaining, I don't think Kerry wants to get into that quagmire....and I think he wants to toe the line of calling Bush a liar very carefully, so he isn't pressed into it.

And while he is at it, he should come up with a reason why the rest of the civilized world had the same suspicions, why intelligence agencies around the world had the same or similar information, and why Kerry reached the same conclusions about Iraq at the time that the President did.

Bring the noise.
Cheers............

[Dark Vengeance]

Anyone who looks at that report and still thinks Saddam was an "iminent threat to the US" as stated by the Bush administration over and over is really not looking at the report from anything other than jaundiced eyes.

The report is over 1200 pages, and came out yesterday, Haemish. While there are a lot of folks commenting on the summary, and the news story about the conclusions of the report, I highly doubt you've read the thing. I'll admit that I haven't either. Your conclusion is based on the side of the spin you want to believe.

Meanwhile, Kerry is still referring to Iraq as having been a threat....and he's doing it using hindsight. It sure would be nice to know then what we know now.....I seem to recall an amusing Brett Favre MasterCard commercial about that.

Even at it's most damaging, what does the report prove? Bush's intelligence was bad...as was intel that was held by countries around the world, including countries that opposed the war. The same intelligence, I might add, that Kerry used in concluding that Iraq was a threat (which he still said today).

Bring the noise.
Cheers.............

[Rasix]

I feel sorry that people try to fill it with spouses, children, friends, family, drugs, sex, liquor, or even intellectual pursuits when that only leaves them wanting more.

So, do you just huddle in a dark basement next to your computer rocking back and forth clutching a bible?

[Nebu]

The question that I'd like answered is: Why the rush to war?  What was it that they expected to happen if we had waited (and researched) another 6 months to go to war?  

I see words like "threat" all over the place in the report (I freely admit to not having read it all thoroughly... and I'm willing to bet the only person that did was the document's author and its editor) but the specifics seem nebulous.  Did they believe that Saddam was going to launch a nulcear threat within 6 months?  Did they believe that he was going to use bioterrorism to attack the US?  There is no doubt that Saddam was doing some bad things, but I'd like to see justice dealt a bit more even-handedly.  

My take: Saddam had fewer materials at his disposal than many other nations and really was more of a regional threat than a global one.  I would further assume that Saddam was delaying UN inspections as a sort of political posturing (i.e. if the neighboring hostile countries believed that he had some WMD capability of nuclear or bio-related nature, then they may have been less likely to strike).  The guy didn't want to tip his hand and let everyone know that he had less power at his disposal.  In poker, this is called "bluffing".  It happened a lot during the cold war and we all survived that just fine... though it did drive the soviet union into an economic sinkhole.

I'm also assuming that there is an agenda that goes beyond the simplistics that are being related to the general public.  There is a definite economic advantage to invading Iraq that makes it a more attractive target for military intervention than places like N. Korea, East Timor, or just about any central African nation.  Of course, the spin we hear from the officials make it seem like we're doing some altruistic duty rather than a combination of helping a region while gaining some economic ground in the oil trade.

I for one don't feel that this administration has been honest about its intentions.  It almost reminds me of the speech that Nicholson gives in a Few Good Men (you know the one about how we give people the task of providing safety and then question the means by which they are able to give us safety).  I should think that scrutiny of the government is one of the freedoms that makes a democracy worthwhile.  Anything that can withstand a challenge may ultimately become strengthened in its resolve.  Bush and Cheaney seem to feel that criticism is a bad thing and are intolerant of it.  This strikes me as a red flag.

[HaemishM]

The reason we went into Iraq is because the neo-conservatives like Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld and others feel that American Imperialism is a better long-term strategic initiative than trying to deal fairly with the rest of the world.

[Nebu]

The reason we went into Iraq is because the neo-conservatives like Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld and others feel that American Imperialism is a better long-term strategic initiative than trying to deal fairly with the rest of the world.

That's pretty much what I assumed, but I was doing my best to be objective.

[Dark Vengeance]

When you contradict yourself worse than even Bush spin campaigns portray Kerry, there's not much left to discuss.  You've said you're both fine and not fine with the exact same scenario, and my whole gripe with you to start with is that you're not being rational in your arguments.  WTG.

You must be misreading something, Roac. IVF and manufacturing embryos for the sole purpose of harvesting of stem cells are not the exact same scenario.

I do; you don't.  IVF procedures predetermine failure; when you follow that procedure, you are all but absolutely certain that there will be multiple otherwise viable embryos that will be proactivcely destroyed

No, you aren't. You *really* aren't. IVF doesn't always work....success rates for IVF are actually not all that great.

http://www.jonesinstitute.org/success_ivf_rates.html
http://www.integramed.com/consumer/success.htm
http://www.infertilityalabama.com/IVF/PregnancyRates.aspx
http://www.ivfrefundplan.com/success_currstats.cfm
http://www.ivf.com/success.html

Additionally, once embryos are created, they can be frozen, and thawed later. This is frequently done if multiple viable embryos are created. Abagadro can attest to this much.

It is possible, not certain. >0 vs 0. You have a real problem grasping that part.

and you have in this paragraph defined failure as "create a human embryo when it is predetermined that it will fail."  If the procedure were such that it would constantly create single embryos until there was a healthy, viable one, the matter would be different; but as it stands, the procedure involves purposefully creating embryos for destruction.

You're arguing about the IVF procedure as a whole. Each indvidual embryo in IVF is fertilized with a possibility that *THAT ONE COULD BE THE ONE* to develop into a human being....that's what I've argued all along. That's a possibility that would not exist for *ANY* embryos manufactured for the harvesting of stem cells.

The inconsistancy goes away if your stance is that the value of success imeasurably outweighs the cost of the loss, but every time I offer up that out you balk at it.  Or it goes away if your stance is that destruction of embryos is not immoral, and you won't take that out either.  Instead you rant about predetermination of failure in the same way a gambling addict talks about beating the house.  It's a logical fallacy - you're going to lose, and the house knows you're going to lose.  The gambler will swear he's got it beat, but it just shows he doesn't know too much about numbers.

I as much as FLAT OUT SAID the destruction of embryos is NOT immoral. I said I would put them on my cereal if they stayed crunchy in milk. I meant it. You keep ignoring that part. Show me where I said different. The immoral part IMO is the CREATION WITH PREDETERMINATION OF FAILURE, not the destruction itself.

But cmon back and keep showing us all your l33t reading comprehension skills.

Every single one of us on this forum is here because our odds of becoming a human being at conception were >0. Abagadro's new child is here because IVF made the odds of that egg & sperm developing into a human being >0. Matter of fact, IVF gave Abagadro and his wife the >.

Paint me a scenario where even ONE embryo produced for the sole purpose of harvesting stem cells will have a statistical possibility of becoming a human being that is >0, and I'll concede the entire argument.

I'll give you the answer: You can't. If an embryo created for the purpose of harvesting stem cells were to become a child, that means that it was not created for the SOLE purpose of harvesting stem cells.

Bring the noise.
Cheers............

[Shannow]

I believe there is a God because I can feel his guiding force in my life. I don't believe in simple fate, circumstance, or luck. I don't think the interconnected universe just happened to be tossed together so well on a mathematical random change that even the best minds can't explain it. Some will say religion is for people who fear the unknown. I say there is a God shaped hole in everyone that they try to fill with a lot of stuff that doesn't fit. I feel sorry that people try to fill it with spouses, children, friends, family, drugs, sex, liquor, or even intellectual pursuits when that only leaves them wanting more.

I could never have peace in a Godless world, despite the ideals of the "moral atheist." Or as Dostoyevsky put it, "Anything is permissible if there is no God."

I believe in 'god'.

I don't believe in religion.

I suspect there's a lot of people like me out there.

[Samwise]

As any creationist will gleefully tell you, evolution hasn't been rigorously proven as fact, but most educated people do still believe in it.  

Yet another reason why creationists are idoits.

The only thing that makes them idiots, in my mind, is their refusal to believe something with as much backing as evolution simply because it can't be 100% proven.  Anyone who requires absolute proof for belief, and still holds belief in something, is an idiot, because there's no absolute proof of anything.  In reality, someone who claims to require absolute proof just has a twisted definition of "proof".  And you'll see those people on both sides of any given issue.  They're all idiots.  Every single one.  And if you claim intellectual or moral superiority because you think your leaps of faith are more valid than the other guy's, you're the biggest idiot of all.

[Paelos]

I know there are a lot of people who believe in God but not religion. It seems almost ridiculous that some people don't believe in some sort of higher power, but they are in a small minority. It's the hurdles that come after that seperate the wheat from the chaff. I believe God came down to earth as Jesus Christ as the ultimate sacrifice for the sins of all humanity. If you believe something else, we will disagree. If you are afraid of people telling you that you are going to hell, you have nothing to fear from me. That's not my call and I don't know the answer since you aren't dead yet.

And no I don't sit in my room clutching a Bible, if you bothered to read the page attached to my sig you might learn a lot more about what I truly believe about the current church and Christianity in general.

[Dark Vengeance]

The question that I'd like answered is: Why the rush to war?  What was it that they expected to happen if we had waited (and researched) another 6 months to go to war?

That's the absolute worst fear, obviously, and I'll concede it as the most unlikely, even based on the intelligence available at the time. But chemical and biological attacks don't have the same snappy visuals.

The intelligence indicated visuals more like this:




Based on that intelligence, and the warnings from Putin, the administration felt we couldn't afford to wait.

The reason we went into Iraq is because the neo-conservatives like Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld and others feel that American Imperialism is a better long-term strategic initiative than trying to deal fairly with the rest of the world.

Let's see Kerry suggest as much to the American people, and see how they respond to it. He won't. Yknow why? Declaring this administration a bunch of neocon liars with an agenda to deceive the American people to further their imperialist agenda makes you start sounding like these guys:



Or, at the very least, like this guy:


If Fahrenheit 9/11 DVD sales are any indication, Kerry had better hope for the latter if he takes that tack.

Bring the noise.
Cheers............

[HaemishM]

Yes, I realize full well what that makes me sound like. However, the neocons themselves have said as much in MANY policy papers and documents over the years, before they were put into power. The most frightening part about it all is that Kerry can't even use those words, because to do so would take too long to explain. The average American would have tuned him out before he got into it enough to make the case.

And unfortunately, it also reminds me that Mein Kampf was published before Hitler was first elected too.

[Rasix]

And no I don't sit in my room clutching a Bible, if you bothered to read the page attached to my sig you might learn a lot more about what I truly believe about the current church and Christianity in general.

"Lukewarm" isn't the best adjective to draw people to clicking your link.

And to go on the record, I fill the hole in my soul with copious amounts of Rome: Total War.  Nothing says enlightened like purging barbarian hordes. Of course, that hole will resurface once I get bored with it, and I'll begin my search anew.  Ohh, woe is me..

[Nebu]

Based on that intelligence, and the warnings from Putin, the administration felt we couldn't afford to wait.

I liked the visual montage.  

I guess I'll just have to agree to disagree.  I think that Putin was wrong as was most of the intelligence about the immediacy of the threat and they were largely just being "yes men" for an administration that wanted to invade Iraq.  

If you want to do something, it's not all that hard to create/find a reason.  Then again, I believe that war is something used only when all other means have been exhausted (and I mean exhausted).  The 17 or 18 prior times that Saddam failed to comply with UN sanctions for inspection produce no immediate threat.  What is the SPECIFIC DATA that signals that this was the proper time for action.  Why not after lack of compliance at request 3? Why not after lack of compliance toward request 30?  They cite "threat" but don't seem to have much concrete to back it up.  Did they find battle plans indicating a date planned for the release of these biological weapons?  Was Saddam amassing an army for the invasion of the United States?  I just haven't seen compelling evidence beyond conjecture and hypothesis.  I need a little more than that before I start killing thousands of people and risking the lives of thousands of my own.

As far as who is benefiting from us attacking Iraq, I'm of the belief that the people of Iraq aren't much more than an afterthought.

[SirBruce]

If you want to do something, it's not all that hard to create/find a reason.  Then again, I believe that war is something used only when all other means have been exhausted (and I mean exhausted).  The 17 or 18 prior times that Saddam failed to comply with UN sanctions for inspection produce no immediate threat.

Hardly anyone said it WAS an immediate threat.  Just that it was a threat, and a growing threat, and we should act on it sooner rather than later.

What is the SPECIFIC DATA that signals that this was the proper time for action.

This is a complicated question and is largely a matter of choice.  How did the US know when was the "proper time" to invade North Africa vs. focusing more on the Pacific?  Or perhaps an even better analogy was the first Gulf War... when was it the right time to liberate Kuwait and Iraq?  We didn't have to go in the day we did... we could have waited longer, given diplomacy more time, right?

Why not after lack of compliance at request 3?

We SHOULD have.  We are correcting the errors of past Presidents.

Why not after lack of compliance toward request 30?  They cite "threat" but don't seem to have much concrete to back it up.

When a guy SAYS he wants to kill you, when he's shooting at your planes in the no-fly zone, harboring terrorists, and trying to assassinate your former leaders, and every time you try to get him to comply with sanctions and the conditions of a cease-fire agreement he agreed to he refuses and stalls and makes lots of noise, do you REALLY want to wait until he's holding a loaded gun at your head to do anything?  No, my friend, it is TOO LATE then.

Did they find battle plans indicating a date planned for the release of these biological weapons?  Was Saddam amassing an army for the invasion of the United States?  I just haven't seen compelling evidence beyond conjecture and hypothesis.  I need a little more than that before I start killing thousands of people and risking the lives of thousands of my own.

The difference stems from 9/11.  (Yes, Iraq probably wasn't involved in 9/11.  That's not the point, now hush.)  Before 9/11, we had very little compelling evidence of an actual plan by UBL to attack the WTC in the US.  But we did know he was threatening us.  We did know he was a terrorist.  We did know he had attacked US forces outside the US in the past.  But there was nothing but "conjecture and hypothesis" that he was currently executing a plan to attack the US.  We knew his desire, but aside from a few FBI leads that were not being followed up due to other problems, very little that was concrete.  And yet we found out that inaction was not the appropriate response; that hoping and waiting until we got something more concrete may result in the deaths of thousands of innocent civillians.

So now we're presented with a similar situation in Iraq.  The same intelligence which thought UBL was a general threat, but nothing specific, is now telling us Iraq is a general threat, but nothing specific.  If the President hadn't acted, and Hussein had sold chemical or biological agents to terrorists to use against us, the same people who complain now we were wrong to listen to our intelligence would bitch that we didn't listen to our intelligence.

How long should you tolerate a bad guy on your block?  We tolerated Hussein for far too long, and just because we can't prove he wasn't going to attack us right at that moment doesn't mean he was wrong to be taken out.

If you people really think Hussein wasn't a threat because he didn't have these weapons, and that the war was a mistake, why don't you advocate letting him out of jail and restoring him to power?  That's the logical conclusion.  "Oh no," you say, "Hussein was a bad guy!"  But not bad enough to invade and put in jail, right?  That's why you wanted more sanctions and inspectors and diplomacy, right?  So that means you want him back in power, right?  No?  Then shut the fuck up, you fucking hypocrites, and stop damaging our foreign policy for the purpose of scoring political points in an election cycle.

Bruce

[Margalis]

The neocon agenda is not arguable.

There was an interesting article the other day in the nation or salon about how Powell is going to leave the state department, and that the neocons would try to discredit Bremer, who is the most likely sucessor, so they can instead move Rice or one of her underlings into that role.

2 days later, Bremer makes some comments about Iraq and the Bush people respond by saying they support the troops and the commanders, not Bremer.

The National Review is running a piece right now encouraging the US to attack Iran.

Neocons want to blow up the middle east and reform it in their image. They've stated as much. There isn't any room for argument on that.

[Calantus]

The Dead Sea scrolls are a famous example that demonstrate there has been almost no distortion across millenia of recopying and retranslating the material, but it is not alone.  Other examples are the Jewish culture itself; mistelling an OT story, for cultures who even today do not have written traditions, carries with it severe social penalty.  Despite having an oral tradition, their retelling matches with written traditions.

There is of course a drift, and there's a whole discipline within literary science that looks at situations like this, and can compare for example, Jewish traditions with mythological cultures, note the "rate of change" at least in abstract, and suggest or cite cultural/linguistical reasons why.  But again, as Toonces did, it's far easier to be an apathetic critic about something instead of learning about it.

I've read the bible, old and new, I've also read the Koran. The problem though is that most people never read them in their entirety, nor do they really stop and think about what they read when they do, and what they do read is coloured by their personal beliefs. I myself couldn't tell you objectively what is written because I read them with my own beliefs discolouring what I read. I also only read through them once (except the New Testement, but the first time I was fairly young so I don't count it), no doubt missing a whole lot of meaning.

When people get most of their doses of religeon by what their scripture teacher, sunday school teacher, priest, parents, grandparents, and/or friends tell them about what they have read/heard it tends to garble the message no-matter how accurate the words in the books. Unfortunately it doesn't stop them from stating "facts" as if God Himself spoke through their lips, instead of what they heard from a friend who heard it from a priest, who pulled parts of the bible for use in getting across the point he wanted to preach.

I'm willing to concede on the bible being well-preserved, I don't believe it necessarily, but I'm not up for looking into it as it's not that important to me.


btw, WayAbvPar, that pic was an absolute classic. :P

On the debate of the Neo-cons and their agenda in the Middle East... read the resource I posted in another thread. There's lots there on plans for Iraq long before 9/11. They've been gunning for it for YEARS, and siezed upon the oppurtunity when it was presented. My impression was that the war was so quick due to a mix of wanting to take Iraq while the excuse of terrorism was still hot, and genuine (though misinformed) fear that Iraq really was a threat.

I also think Bush is largely a puppet, but YMMV.

[Romp]

regarding Sadam's intention to resume his WMD program if sanctions were lifted.  There actually isn't any evidence for this, its just what has been hypothesised.

from http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/10/07/1097089494250.html?from=storylhs

But after interrogating top Iraqi officials and reading thousands of regime documents, Mr Duelfer's investigators could find "no formal written strategy or plan for the revival of [weapons of mass destruction] after sanctions".

Nor could his 1700 experts find any "identifiable group of WMD policy makers or planners separate from Saddam" who were working on reviving the program if sanctions were lifted.

So as far as we know there were no plans to continue even if Sanctions were lifted.  Based on what we know about Sadam its reasonable to assume he might have continued after sanctions but there's no evidence of any plans he had to do so.

As others have said in this thread and what I have argued from the very start, WMD were just a justification or an excuse, not a reason to go to war.  The neo cons had their strategy forumulated years before, 9-11 gave them an opporunity to 'sell' it to the American people and the world.    They managed the former and not really the latter.

We shouldn't even be discussing WMD or links to Al Qaeda at all, they were red herrings from the start.  We should be discussing whether or not neo-con foreign policy is good policy or not.  That people are concentrating on WMD and links to Al Qaeda, etc etc is just deflecting everyone's attention from the real reasons behind the war, which is just what the neo-con's want.

[SirBruce]

We shouldn't even be discussing WMD or links to Al Qaeda at all, they were red herrings from the start.  We should be discussing whether or not neo-con foreign policy is good policy or not.

Taking out dictatorships that are overtly hostile to the US and replacing them with democracies, through force if necessary?  Yeah, I'd say that's a great policy.

Bruce

[Nebu]

Taking out dictatorships that are overtly hostile to the US and replacing them with democracies, through force if necessary?  Yeah, I'd say that's a great policy.

Bruce, I know that given another glance that you'll see the problems with this statement yourself.  Having said that I won't even bother to comment.  

I think that there are different camps on every issue within this thread and things are far more likely to get inflammatory before anyone changes their mind.  As I said above, I'm going to agree to disagree and do my best to refrain from further comment.

[SirBruce]

Taking out dictatorships that are overtly hostile to the US and replacing them with democracies, through force if necessary?  Yeah, I'd say that's a great policy.

Bruce, I know that given another glance that you'll see the problems with this statement yourself.

I don't see any problems with that statement at all.  If I were living in a dictatorship I'd want someone to come liberate me and give me a democratic form of government.

Now, it's true that the above policy is no panacea.  A democratic country can still be a threat to your country, and you may still have to go to war with it.  But it is still right that they be free.  Only a person with warped liberal views who don't believe in protecting essential liberties but instead believe in a general, communal "social good" where it is okay for some to suffer for the benefit of others would believe otherwise.

Bruce

[Romp]

yes its more a question of whether invading said country is the best way to bring about democracy.  

I personally believe that war can be justified for humanitarian reasons in the event of genocide or something similar.

[Zaphkiel]

Now, it's true that the above policy is no panacea.  A democratic country can still be a threat to your country, and you may still have to go to war with it.  But it is still right that they be free.  Only a person with warped liberal views who don't believe in protecting essential liberties but instead believe in a general, communal "social good" where it is okay for some to suffer for the benefit of others would believe otherwise.

Bruce

   So you're saying that Nixon had warped liberal views?  When the CIA undermined the democratically elected government of Salvador Allende and replaced it with a military junta?

[SirBruce]

So you're saying that Nixon had warped liberal views?  When the CIA undermined the democratically elected government of Salvador Allende and replaced it with a military junta?

Yes.  During the Cold War, most people felt such actions were justified in order to combat the greater evil, Communism.  We paid a price for that by not properly dealing with the rise of terrorism, as well as other social problems.  Of course, this does not mean that Communism didn't need to be defeated.  Simply that doing so by supporting dictatorships was the wrong way to go about it.

I would gladly go about correcting those mistakes by eliminating those dictatorships.  Would those who oppose the Iraq War gladly go about correcting that "mistake" by re-instating one?

Bruce

[SirBruce]

yes its more a question of whether invading said country is the best way to bring about democracy.  

I personally believe that war can be justified for humanitarian reasons in the event of genocide or something similar.

I think after multiple UN sanctions, our failure to support the previous rebellion, and our failed support of a military coup (unproven, but widely believed), I think war was the only option to bring about Democracy in Iraq any time soon.  The alternative is "Wait for the leader to die and see what happens."  Well that hasn't worked out too well with North Korea or Cuba, and Hussein's sons, his likely successors, were probably even more sadistic than Saddam was.

Plus, again, the guy was a threat, and supported terrorists, and was still on probation from the last time we kicked his ass.  And he was sitting in a far more important region strategically than some minor dictator of some island nation.

Bruce

[Romp]

on the whole in the past 10-15 years the number of democratic regimes has increased significantly without anyone needing to invade countries to change their regimes.

Btw the US government is still supporting Coups in democratic states now - eg against Chavez in Venzuela (failed) and Aristide in Haiti (succeeded)

[Disco Stu]

The only thing that makes them idiots, in my mind, is their refusal to believe something with as much backing as evolution simply because it can't be 100% proven.  Anyone who requires absolute proof for belief, and still holds belief in something, is an idiot, because there's no absolute proof of anything.  In reality, someone who claims to require absolute proof just has a twisted definition of "proof".  And you'll see those people on both sides of any given issue.  They're all idiots.  Every single one.  And if you claim intellectual or moral superiority because you think your leaps of faith are more valid than the other guy's, you're the biggest idiot of all.

I'm surprised you could fit that much bull shit in one paragraph. The problem you have is you're talking like evolution hasn't been proven. It has. If you can't understand that very simple concept you're an idiot. It's not a leap of faith any more than accepting that the earth revolves around the sun is a leap of faith.

[Roac]

Did they believe that Saddam was going to launch a nulcear threat within 6 months? Did they believe that he was going to use bioterrorism to attack the US?

The claims made by the US government were that (1) Iraq was directly funding (hence supporting) AQ terrorist activities, which was relevant to 9/11, and that (2) Iraq had WMDs and WMD programs.  

Those claims might have been more credible, except for UN resolution 1441, ironically enough.  That resolution ordered the reconstitution of the weapon inspectors, that any UN government with an interest was able to supply the inspectors with information, that the inspectors must take reasonable steps to investigate that information, and that Iraq must allow totally unrestricted access.  I say they were not credible, because when the US effectively ordered the inspectors out so we could go to war, the inspectors were reporting that they wanted more time, had made progress despite only a semi-cooperative Iraq, and had as of yet found nothing.

When the US government talks about imminent threat, it certainly did act with as though there was.  The inspectors were pleading for more time, even a few weeks.  We told them to get out, as their safety cannot be assured.

I for one don't feel that this administration has been honest about its intentions.

I agree.  The claims made by the government at the time of the Iraq invasion didn't make sense; Saddam and Bin Ladin being cooperative was utterly against everything both men stood for.  The WMD claims were disputed by our own inspectors who were actively looking for them.  If the US wanted to find WMDs, we should have been giving the inspectors intelligence  - the same intel that Powell went to the UN with with his "WMDs are here" posters.  But ok, you couldn't raise a peep of doubt at the time, because everyone would shout you down with accusations of being unpatriotic.  And maybe they were right - I mean, the government should know, right?

[SirBruce]

on the whole in the past 10-15 years the number of democratic regimes has increased significantly without anyone needing to invade countries to change their regimes.

That's because a bunch of the regimes were liberated due to our winning the Cold War.

If you count democratic regimes after the fall of the Soviet Union, you'll find quite a few were formed thanks to our interference.

Btw the US government is still supporting Coups in democratic states now - eg against Chavez in Venzuela (failed) and Aristide in Haiti (succeeded)

No, we aren't.  These are gross distortions of the truth.

Bruce

[Margalis]

The justification for the war has changed about 5 times. For a long time we were saying "WMD", then we started saying "WMD Programs." We later came up with the whole "free Iraq" angle, and are now to "we have nothing specific really, but the world is better off."

I wonder how many people would have been for the invasion if the justification had been then what it is now. No WMD, no WMD programs, no AQ - Iraq connection.

If we really just want to make the world a better place, we should go into Darfur no? What is the latest estimate, that the dead could reach 200,000?

[Romp]

and at the time when Sadam WAS committing genocide, gasing the kurds, the US supported him.