[bumxumer]

What if the reasons for going into Iraq had nothing to do with WMD or UN sanction breaches. What if the reasons were bigger than that but explaining it would have compromised the strategy, or maybe there was a fear that we would not have agreed.

However you look at our situation, you must hope that our governement is looking at the long term best interest of our country. This is serious shit, and requires big boy attention.

[ecosportpol_ru]

Like maybe having a base right next to Iran, who has pretty much vowed to start WWIII?

[amannddo]

Sure, it makes sense, just look up PNAC. Global domination is the main objective. It's the reason we took Iraq.

[flower-buy]

... or maybe there was a fear that we would not have agreed.

That's no excuse. As a matter of fact, that is the exact opposite of an excuse.

However you look at our situation, you must hope that our governement is looking at the long term best interest of our country.

Hope's one thing, and trust's another. Quite frankly, this government hasn't been trustworthy since before I was born.

[f6HLLFcw]

That's it Sam. No matter what the subject, find a way to bash Republicans.

[griddle]

What? *looking around all innocent-like*

What'd I do?

[Darnisg]

Did you guys know? I am a designated middleman. Yep, that's right, a bonafide middleman. :P

Given that Mr. Spad, and Mrs. Sam are both regulars around here, perhaps it is a good idea to attempt the occasional rational discussion and not use the partisan routine on each other. That sort of routine is always available for other partisans that abound.

Then again, what do I know? Maybe I should stick to finding smilies. :P

[neerewed]

We're just playing But OK I will try to get serious.

Seriously though WEB, what would a person like me say about something like this? I do believe that there is a bigger plan, a completely different reason for the war in Iraq than the several reasons we have been given. All those reasons that turned out to be false. PNAC is the answer. IMHO. Not a partisan snipe. My opinion.

[AlabamaBoyz]

What if the reasons for going into Iraq had nothing to do with WMD or UN sanction breaches. What if the reasons were bigger than that but explaining it would have compromised the strategy, or maybe there was a fear that we would not have agreed.

However you look at our situation, you must hope that our governement is looking at the long term best interest of our country. This is serious shit, and requires big boy attention.

It's tough one. On the one hand I don't like being lied to, but then I don't want to hear "we can't tell you why because it'll blow our plan", nor do I want to actually impede any actual plan they might have (I, personally, don't believe they are hell-bent on world domination. Call me a sap, but I just don't see it.).

But the problem with doing things for the "long term best interest" is that I don't know if I trust these people to be looking out for MY long term best interest. Everybody has a different idea of what that is. If Samantha were in power I'm sure she would acting in the country's "best interest" but I would think the country was going to hell in a handbasket.

[poispanna]

No way dude, if I were in charge, we would have wiped out those bastards that attacked us and Afghanistan would be stable. Saddam would be the same as Clinton left him, crippled with sanctions. We would be churning out cars with biodeisel engines and our farms would be growing beaucoup corn to run them. There would be major tax breaks for peeps who put solar panels on their houses and businesses. I would call for all religous leaders of the world to have a summit and not stop till they work out this bullshit fighting. I would pay China and Saudi Arabia back so they can't fuck us up suddenly by calling in our debt. I would give the people back all the rights and liberties that Bush has taken away. I would promise not to have oral sex in the White House, unless I really really wanted to. You would be happy if I was in charge, I promise. Maybe some of you guys could be my cronies. I admire a few of you very much Even some of you righties

[fedelwet]

What if the reasons for going into Iraq had nothing to do with WMD or UN sanction breaches. What if the reasons were bigger than that but explaining it would have compromised the strategy, or maybe there was a fear that we would not have agreed.

However you look at our situation, you must hope that our governement is looking at the long term best interest of our country. This is serious shit, and requires big boy attention.

You vote for a government to represent you. You are now saying that it's alright that they perhaps did something other than you and/or the majority of Americans would have wanted, and hopefully for the best (I see you crossing your fingers there). That is in effect saying that this administration has hijacked the democracy for the duration of their time in power by lying to and deceiving the American public.

What if almost the entire administration was filled with really really rich people? What if a lot of them were seriously involved with big corporations in the past, and perhaps even today? What if their best interests do not coincide with yours or with most of the US?

Helene

[chppjdf]

Sounds familiar Helene

[Yarikoff]

Did you guys know? I am a designated middleman. Yep, that's right, a bonafide middleman. :P

Given that Mr. Spad, and Mrs. Sam are both regulars around here, perhaps it is a good idea to attempt the occasional rational discussion and not use the partisan routine on each other. That sort of routine is always available for other partisans that abound.

Then again, what do I know? Maybe I should stick to finding smilies. :P

WEB, It's time to come clean. Sam and I are actually the same person, sort of like Doctor Spad and Mrs. Jeckle. That's why you never see us together. Two sides of the same coin.

We like the smilies, though.

[Pa33anger]

HAHA!!!! You (I) were (was) supposed to keep it a secret. Dammit, you (me) and your (my) big mouth!!!!!

[lXvtm0ox]

What if the reasons for going into Iraq had nothing to do with WMD or UN sanction breaches. What if the reasons were bigger than that but explaining it would have compromised the strategy, or maybe there was a fear that we would not have agreed.

However you look at our situation, you must hope that our governement is looking at the long term best interest of our country. This is serious shit, and requires big boy attention.

Trusting the government with the best interest of our country, ha ha, thats a good one. Tell you what, show me a politican who doesn't have ambition, greed, and is positively unhuman by always doing the /right/ thing. Politicans are human, they fight dirty and lie through their teeth, and what you imply is that we the very important "people" are better off letting the politicans make the decisions for us, because we're too dumb. That also implies that the politicans are certified geniuses or master strategist. Our democracy will fail if our leaders lead without the will of the people, and as for your argument it doesn't hold up.
Look, point is, the people must be able to determin such decisions themselves. This is a democracy, not a dictatorship, we hold that my voice means just as much as yours and that politicans are still human. If we give up such an idea, we'll loose everything the United States ever meant to anyone. I have no doubt that we will win this war, but I do question what the price will be to the United States that believed in a free world. With every terrorist blow throughout the world, the United States struggles to not cross the line of what it means to be a free country (The terrorist will not destroy the United States of America, but I do fear that they will transform it into the thing that they hate most. Kinda ironic, but such is life).

[Alina20100]

With every terrorist blow throughout the world, the United States struggles to not cross the line of what it means to be a free country (The terrorist will not destroy the United States of America, but I do fear that they will transform it into the thing that they hate most. Kinda ironic, but such is life).

The terrorists will not destroy the US of A. Our greedy power mad leaders will do it, under the pretense of keeping us safe.

[sirmzereigMix]

I think when you toss terrorists and nukes together, ala Iran, nobody's safe.

[cafeviahe]

So true. If only Bush would not have dismantled the program Clinton set up to keep track of the Soviet left over enriched uranium and make sure it does not fall into terrorist hands.
http://www.armscontrol.org/act/1998_08-09/tnas98.asp

Do you even know what Bush is up to? He scares me.

The ABM Treaty, which has so clearly been terrorizing us all since its signatories put it into action in 1972, forbids the potential deployment of decoys - payloadless warheads, balloons, and missiles that give off false heat readings - that might accompany a nuclear attack, thus making missile defense (which did not then and still does not exist) difficult if not impossible. Defenses were curtailed, in other words, to keep offensive nuclear forces from growing. The ABM Treaty did not seek to limit the number of missiles a country could possess - the SALT treaties did that. But the ABM Treaty and SALTs 1 and 2 were all based on the same premise: huge numbers of nuclear warheads were not needed, unnecessary, and destabilized the world. The Bush administration’s rationale for mothballing the ABM Treaty holds that it is a relic of the Cold War, one that endangers U.S. security - rather like, for instance, nuclear weapons. Bush himself put it this way: “Russia is not an enemy of the United States and yet we still go to a treaty that assumes Russia is the enemy, a treaty that says the whole concept of peace is based on us blowing each other up. I don’t think that makes sense anymore.” What apparently makes sense to Bush are more, better nuclear weapons. Only this, the Bush administration has argued, “may dissuade a potential adversary from pursuing threatening capabilities.” But North Korea was girdled by U.S. nuclear weapons in South Korea for 33 years, and the threat of immolation did not, by all evidence, prevent it from seeking out nuclear technology. Saddam's Iraq, Libya, Algeria, and Iran have pursued nuclear weapons beneath the atomic shadow of a superpower able to annihilate them. Seriously he doesn't seem to make stable decisions, this Dubya...
Bush sought some insight into the leader of a nation he had already declared a member of the "axis of evil", and was now confronting over its nuclear weapons ambitions.
Bush told Jiang he had never met North Korea's "dear leader" Kim Jong-il, Time magazine reported. He asked Jiang if Kim was a "peaceful man". "Honestly," Jiang replied, "I don't know."

Nine months on, with the North Korean nuclear crisis spiralling out of control, George Bush is probably still wondering the same thing - but with a much greater sense of urgency.

In a remarkably short time, the crisis over North Korea's nuclear policy has gone from a distraction from the main game of regime change in Iraq to the most critical threat to world security today.

This is how it rapidly unravelled. After the North's admission, there was a general assumption that this would be a repeat of 1994. Back then, the Clinton administration brokered a deal under which the communist state gave up its nuclear ambitions in return for substantial energy aid.

It was North Korean bluff and brinkmanship all over again, many argued. Disdainful of the Clinton policy of engagement with the Stalinist state, the Bush Administration refused to negotiate until the North abandoned its nuclear program. The North refused. It also wanted direct talks with the US. Washington said it would only talk in a multi-lateral forum.

As the months passed, relations worsened. North Korea expelled nuclear inspectors, reopened a mothballed nuclear facility and quit the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. In recent weeks, it claims to have reprocessed 8000 spent nuclear fuel rods - making enough plutonium to produce at least six nuclear bombs. The US cannot verify it, but its intelligence suggests North Korea has at least started reprocessing.

[Viafdrear]

Like maybe having a base right next to Iran, who has pretty much vowed to start WWIII?

So why not say that this is the reason?

[TheLucyLee]

All you have to do is get out a map of the Middle East and look at Iraq.
You will then see why were are there.
Iraq borders every important oil nation in the Middle East along with the perennial trouble maker, Syria.
Iraq is right smack dab in the middle of everything.
Great place for the US to control the entire Middle East.
No more begging for landing rights, no more going around the horn in order to get tanks where we need them.
From Iraq we can reach out and touch any trouble maker in the Middle East.
God Bless President Bush for putting us there!