A New War You Can't Blame On Bush! Or Can You?

Yeah, Sparthosx and Kara can be kindof annoying, but their inputs are always welcome.

I enjoy their opinions because it gives something to think about unless they are contradicting reality (in Sparth's case) or history (in Kara's case).

I understood your point, I'm not sure why you made it. Why would one troll bait as a liberal on MSNBCs site? You make points, but you don't stop to think them through.

I do think it is kinda funny how everyone now is an Iraq War expert after the fact though.

I wasn't an expert after the fact as even my 14 year old self couldn't see why we were attacking Saddam Hussain when he had no connection to Al Qaeda or its splinter networks.

The man was a brutal dictator, murderer, torturer and overall shitbag but he had nothing to do with 9/11, he didn't attack us on our own soil and we had a war already waging in Afghanistan. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that a war on two fronts means dividing your resources and weakening your overall objective to capture and kill OBL and overall dismantle the Al Qaeda terrorist network.

But yes, do carry on.

You have a son how cute.

Well, that is the only website where making off the wall troll stories (like MSN does all the time) gets a huge reaction.

I sometimes look at those stories just to laugh at the people caught in it taking the troll bait.

I was giving you a means to cast your troll bait elsewhere, because people here are too smart to take it in.

Since when is anyone on this website an expert at anything?

If anything, all we do is throw our opinions down and (in Kara's case) sometimes back it up with our interpretations of other sources.

I hardly consider that as an expert opinion or anything close to that.

I know facts can be kind of annoying but they are there for anyone who wants to look at the reality of things before and after the Iraq invasion.

Your points have been addressed multiple times so either pony up contradictory evidence to what was reality or accept that you're just posturing because you've no cards to play.

Well, its not really posturing, but I don't really like arguing with those who are so set into their beliefs that, by telling them that the sky is blue, they would just shout out "NO, IT IS RED, AND YOU ARE STUPID TO THINK SO!!!!!"

But then again, I don't think either of us are going to change each other's minds this way. Not on this forum at the very least.

There is no room for flexibility on Iraq based on the facts. All the cards were placed on the table and from that my conclusion has been drawn. You're free to make your own based on the evidence and you're free to post it here along with evidence that may dispute mine. The reality is that most of the neocon hawks have walked back Iraq or tried to spin it in a desperate attempt to save face means you have quite the uphill battle going for you.

Do you also dispute that gravity is a powerful force in our universe? Or that water is wet? Or that bullets kill people? Enough research has been done on Iraq and skepticism tossed abound predating the invasion.

With very few exceptions, all the accurate information we have about Iraq prior to the invasion was available BEFORE the invasion. It's not that hindsight is 20/20, but when you have contradictory intelligence, sometimes you side with the wrong one.

I will say there is a certain virtue in assuming the worst, obviously the consequences of a WMD wielding terrorist organization with a proven ability to attack within the US being ignored could be dire. However, when sets of data are so contradictory and (even if only at face value) are credible, you have an obligation to conduct an additional 3rd party investigation. You don't just pick the one that you like and go with it.

I am a firm believer that there was a sense of duty to remove Saddam, and when evidence (even questionable evidence) arose, no amount of contradictory evidence was going to change the course of events.

I can only hope that the current administration will weigh the consequences of action without the typical imperialistic warmongering.

Definitely not fabricated, but it's a very good example of conclusion based thinking. You (figuratively) have an idea in your head. As evidence piles up supporting your idea, you fail to critically examine it and ignore contradictory evidence.

I DO believe that G.W.Bush is a simpleton. Not necessarily a dolt, but far from a critical thinker. He said publicly that he had no need for introspection. I KNOW that Cheney is a smart and driven. It's fairly clear in hindsight that there were several people within the administration that had a lot to gain from a prolonged occupation of Iraq, and whether it was blatant or not, the evidence that would have prevented action was ignored and the evidence that supported it wasn't properly scrutinized.

That's conclusion based thinking. It's the same way that creation science is bunk. If you already think you have the answer, you'll find any amount of evidence to support it.

If that is true, then where was the outrage BEFORE we invaded Iraq?

Where was the outrage days/months AFTER we started?

Oh right, there was none.

If you were outraged, then show us!

So, if you think about cause and effect (you know, conclusion based thinking as you put it) that makes you a simpleton?

Maybe there are multiple facts (gasp!) going on at the time and the decisions made happened to be made to look like the person made their decisions based on conclusion based thinking. Maybe that is how the person makes their decisions, who really cares?

But that doesn't mean that a specific way of thinking makes a person a simpleton, or stupid, or idiotic. That is how they live their lives.

And there is nothing wrong with that type of thinking either.

Just for clarification, there are two possible reasons for a complete lack of introspection.

1. Sociopathy
2. Low intelligence

I would prefer to believe we had a president who was simple.

Also...

There is something very wrong with conclusion based thinking. Maybe not when you're a janitor, but we're not talking about invading the broom closet with an arsenal of sponges.

FYI, conclusion based thinking is hardly cause and effect. It's not like two sets of facts can be correct in this case. There is only one truth. Iraq didn't have WMD's and wasn't attempting to get them. The evidence was available PRIOR to the invasion. So, you're flat out wrong about this. The evidence saying they did have WMD's was proven wrong across the board mostly before we even invaded.

They had a conclusion, and no amount of evidence would sway that conclusion.

Talking about conclusion based thinking is going to inevitably lead us back to the religion of global warming? Should I take us there again in order to discuss people that disregard data that doesn't support their preconceived notions?

This is blatant flamebait. Discuss the topic maturely or go away.

What part of 9/11 fears and nationalism isn't clear to you? Dissenting voices were silenced amidst the fear mongering and reason was set aside for axises of evil. Freedom fries for crying out loud were a thing.

There was a very strong PR campaign during the first few years after the "War". If you disagreed with the premise or method of the war and occupation, you were unamerican or you didn't support the troops. The "freedom fries" sentiment was just a clever distraction.

In a way it was brilliant. The dissidents of the Iraq war are not the easily discredited hippies and black panthers of the Vietnam era. Shrugging them off with the "get a haircut" wasn't going to appease the masses, so they used the heightened state of awareness system to keep people afraid and accused the anti-war voices of supporting terrorists and being ungrateful for the sacrifices of the troops, etc.

Ron Paul was one!


Polly want a cracker?

Did I miss someone already saying that? I'm not sure what you mean.

I love the administration's addition of adjectives as they see that people aren't on board with their plans. They just keep on stacking them on.

"Limited, narrow, targeted, surgical strikes."

Actually, they've even started shying away from the word "strike" due to the nature of the word and have been using the broad word "action". I wonder what will be tacked on next. Infinitesimally small, limited, narrow, targeted, surgical, directed action?

And what was once 300 or so people as shown by the Doctors without Borders actually there, is now "at least 1,429 people".

No matter how they try and spin this it's still an attack that the majority of Americans don't want.

Did you not hear about the war protests before we went to war and during the war?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protests_against_the_Iraq_War

Maybe before you make blatantly false statements you could actually use google.

UN inspector who spoke out starting in 2002
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Ritter

I don't know what other alternate timeline you were in 11 years ago but it definately wasn't reality.

Until there is an actual strike it doesn't matter.

NOOOOOOOOOOOOO YOUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU

The irony of this statement is delicious.

Wow it survived. Are the mods on a hiatus or what?

Firstly, wow have you seen the new protest videos? It just tugs at my heart!

Alot of pages to catch up on. Now that a few days have passed and time has developed more interesting twists let's see if we can all keep up.

Jassik, lol. Our government is not approaching it objectively. Please, support your idea to that. Sending ships, preparing the people for it. Driving the lies in. He is just trying to get intl. support. I don't fully believe the President wants to, but I believe he will or else.
http://revolutionradio.org/?p=56622

Oh Spathos, no boots on the ground ok. Sounds great. I'm in, but let's look logically. They will retaliate. And they what, the USA will just say ok and go home? What drugs do you use? This will escalate back and forth until that happens.

Good job Aselin I concur!

First troll. Amandarius. We have been supplying the rebels for long enough. It is speculated the cover up of benghazi is because they were getting arms to Syrian terrorists(rebels) thru this location.

Spathos again. The religion of Islam and the amount of fanatics there calls for a hard leader. Funny, all these economies and literacy rates and quality of life are rising but we have to change them. Africa is not, and we don't help them, which we should.

Well played Zicdeh.

Lol Spathos, why keep comparing the two? Bush is an idiot. But to use him as what we should expect or compare our presidents to? Lol? Bush is the standard we should expect so Libya, and now Syria should be no problem because Bush did more? Sigh.

Nephil yes Bush and Chaney were also traitors. They only do what they are told by their puppetmasters.

Oh Eugene, either you're unwilling to look for information or just want to live in your comfy delusional life. No children?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-22095099
Rebels using chemicals.
http://beforeitsnews.com/opinion-conservative/2013/05/un-finds-only-syrian-rebels-used-chemical-weapons-2635400.html
http://www.onenewspage.co.uk/n/World/74vudu6ku/UN-inquiry-finds-evidence-that-rebel-forces-have.htm
Some history of false flags that have been declassified.
http://www.wanttoknow.info/falseflag

At least gays and christian can live in Syria. Good luck when the muslim brotherhood takes over.

They wanted Iraq's economy. Bet they have a reserve and are debt based now.
Just looked, pretty close. Won't be long. ;) http://www.iraqdinares.com/showthread.php?57246-U-S-Federal-Reserve-Controls-Iraqi-Foreign-Currency-!!!-YESSS-!!!

Hijack for a page on a stupid, beaten topic.


Seems alot of stupid banter for the most part. Some useful conversation. If there was good evidence, but there isn't.

Enuyasha, off topic but Romney wanted to force China to raise labor costs and standards so American companies were less enticed to go there. Thats all he meant by hard. Not sure how you all pull wwar out of that lol.

Leave them alove.

Why are you talking to me? I have no idea what you're talking about, sorry.

We've been much closer to war before and not attacked. Cuban missle crisis, north korean wargames, etc. BTW, when you're catching up, best not to reply to week old posts as if they are misinformed.

It's not uncommon to shift our alert forces toward an area of conflict, any career naval officer would tell you that when a country is in conflict, we often double or triple our presence nearby. So even if we increased our forces there, it's hardly a declaration of war.

Maybe you'd like to support your opinion that objectivity is lost? Been in many cabinet meetings lately? Maybe something from Kerry's twitter feed?

Syria: Putin rubbishes chemical attack claims
• Russian president goes on offensive against Obama
• US weighs up next move as UN team go to Lebanon
• Two-thirds of French people oppose intervention, says poll