Dean on Saddam capture: "America is no safer"

You're an idiot. This analogy is flawed in every respect. You are presenting Hollywood people who preach one thing but do soemthing that contradicts what they allegedly support. By contrast,you can certainly support something without participating in it, and give thanks to those who do. You have no clue what you are talking about. People who don't serve can't support those who do? That's probably the stupidest thing I've ever heard.

 

You seem to be forgetting that we pay taxes which fund the military.

 

The only flaw, and its a big one, in this logic is that so do those in the Military.. unless of course, they are in immienent danger where they can catch a bullet at any moment. Then, that particular month or however long the combat lasts, is tax free. The rest of the time serving is just like a regular job, which you and I know is not quite the case.

Cut out the raise for a year or two you give to those in uniform. Instead, make them tax free, including the dividends earned on their salary (ONLY).

 

Just to refresh your memories:


• "Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction." -- Vice President Dick Cheney, Aug. 26, 2002.

• "Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons." -- President Bush, Sept. 12, 2002.

• "The Iraqi regime possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons." -- Bush, Oct. 7, 2002.

• "We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that would be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We're concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using the UAVs for missions targeting the United States." -- Bush, Oct. 7, 2002.

• "The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. Saddam Hussein has held numerous meetings with Iraqi nuclear scientists, a group he calls his 'nuclear mujahideen' -- his nuclear holy warriors. Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at sites that have been part of its nuclear program in the past."-- Bush, Oct. 7, 2002.

• "We know for a fact there are weapons there." -- White House spokesman Ari Fleischer, Jan. 9, 2003.

• "Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of Sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent." -- Bush, Jan. 28, 2003.

• "We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction, is determined to make more." -- Secretary of State Colin Powell, Feb. 5, 2003.

• "Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised." -- Bush, March 17, 2003.

• "Well, there is no question that we have evidence and information that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical particularly." -- Fleischer, March 21, 2003.

• "I have no doubt we're going to find big stores of weapons of mass destruction." -- Kenneth Adelman, Defense Policy Board, March 23, 2003.

• "We know where they are. They are in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad." -- Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, March 30, 2003.

• "We'll find them. It'll be a matter of time to do so." -- Bush, May 3, 2003.

• "I never believed that we'd just tumble over weapons of mass destruction in that country." -- Rumsfeld, May 4, 2003.

• "U.S. officials never expected that we were going to open garages and find weapons of mass destruction." -- National security adviser Condoleezza Rice, May 12, 2003.

• "They may have had time to destroy them, and I don't know the answer." -- Rumsfeld, May 27, 2003.

• "We based our decisions on good, sound intelligence, and the -- our people are going to find out the truth. And the truth will say that this intelligence was good intelligence. There's no doubt in my mind." -- Bush, July 17, 2003.

 

zjpj,
There's a difference between supporting military (which many of the anti-war people do) and supporting the war. If it's such a great cause, why not support the cause by enlisting???


MarkPDX-"You seem to be forgetting that we pay taxes which fund the military."

Interesting way to try to skate out of not actively participating. Did you know that everyone pays taxes? Even I do, even the people against the war. So why not sign up and help out if the cause is so great??

 

How many of you know that back in 1980, Saddam Hussein was presented with the key to city of Detroit and was made an honorary citizen of Detroit, courtesy of the mayor?

We would like the key back, please.

 

I'm too lazy to look up the #s but the military population is a small percentage of the total tax paying population.

Enthusiasm for a particular campaign may be helpful to the recruiters but I'm not sure it is a good reason to sign up. After the fight is over then what? What if I disagree with the next cause? IMHO a decision to join the military should come from a desire to serve one's country. It's not for everyone though and it's ridiculous to suggest that someone's opinion about Iraq is invalid simply because they aren't rushing to put on a uniform.

 

Around half of a percent, if you base it on 1.2 mil active duty across all branches. That is just an educated guess based on 250k-300k per branch x4 plus extras (Coast Guard, active reservists recalled, etc).

 

America is no safer I think. Who knows who will react to the capture. I don't think this was the best way to handle this. The public seems to forget what we were really after...Bin Laden....WMD...wait I forget. What the hell is going on. They should have kept this quiet and gotten all the information they could, this could go on for a while and eventually people are going to get pissed off, so what will be next. It's clear that we are not going to send more troops, and Bush has managed to piss off a lot of the world, though he is working quickly to rectify that.

Is this an early reelection run, or a strong move? It's hard to tell.

I can't see where they are trying to go, how do you get to the stated objective of a "free" Iraq following this course?


Vincent.

 

Randall,

You're a hell of a hypocrite. You make the analogy between people who don't enlist and Hollywood types who'se actions don't follow their words. You are guilty of EXACTLY the same thing. You chastise others for not participating in a cause they believe in. Yet you participate in a cause you don't believe in. And you slam others for not enlisting.. aren't you based in Hawaii? Yep, it really sounds like you are putting your life on the line there big guy. I would say you are worse, because you are happy to take a paycheck and the benefits of being involved in something you don't agree with. Shame on you, you gutless wonder. After high school, a friend of mine sent in one of those "I want to join the marines" cards as a prank. A couple of marines showed up at my house and gave me that aptitude test. I got a perfect score. They tried to recruit me HARD but I wasn't interested. It had nothing to do with being afraid, but simply that I had and have other things I wanted to do in life. That doesn't take away my right to have an opinion and a vote on how we do things in this country. Just like you don't have to be a politician to complain about Bush. How ridiculous would you feel it if someone said "if you don't like Bush, why don't YOU run for president or else STFU". What a moronic argument, but it's one you are relying on heavily. Just recognize how it sounds, ok?

Nibbles,

I like your style. If you're ever in Boston, let me buy you a beer. I like someone who speaks his mind and isn't afraid to tell someone how it's going to be.


Art,

You are focusing WAY too much on a single aspect of this war. You are trying to distill the argument for war to a simple declarative of "he DOES have WMD, therefore we MUST attack". But as you know, it's never that simple. Nothing ever is. The bottom line is that Saddam was KNOWN to have WMD after the first war. After he lost badly (and was given a pass of sorts by not being hunted down and killed), he was tasked with PROVING to the world he had disarmed. The sanctions were tied to proof of disarmament. Sanctions were never lifted - why? Because he NEVER fulfilled his end of the bargain. Our previous administration did not have the will to take a harder stance against this. In the wake of 9/11, rogue states became a lot more of a concern to us. Saddam was a man with the will, the means, and the potential to do us great harm. We decided to enforce the requirement that he PROVE he had no WMD. He never did that - NEVER! Even when we were shipping tens of thousands of GI's at a time to Iraq, he never proved a thing. He gambled his people, his presidency, and his life on his own stupidity and stubbornness. The fact that no WMD were found just shows what a complete moron the guy is. He lost it all... for nothing! What kind of sick bastard lets his people starve over his unwillingness to prove he doesn't have something he really doesn't have!

Now hindsight is always 20/20, and in retrospect it does seem that we went to war too quickly, but what exactly was going to change? Assuming we can agree that Saddam needed to be made to live up to the requirements set forth by the UN, at what point do we say "enough is enough"? 13 years wasn't enough? Or do you feel people should not me held to their agreements? What precedent does that set for North Korea, and the Saudis who finance terorrism? Suddenly it's OK to lie to our face and do whatever you like, because in the end America doesn't have the balls to do anything about it. That's not a message that is conducive to our future safety. So the bottom line is that it is very easy to say we went in too early, but when should we have waited until? Another 10 years?

And I will explain very easily why it was "sold" on WMD. There were many reasons go to into Iraq, but the WMD argument was one that gave the invasion legitimacy in the eyes of the UN (because future military action was a potential repercussion of Saddam/Iraq not proving their lack of WMD). That is why that singular reason was trumped so much. Not because it was the only reason, or the main reason, but because it was the best reason to talk about. It sure blew up in Bush's face, but we know you're a sharp guy Art so don't pretend like it was the singular reason for going in when you know and I know and everyone else knows it wasn't.


And to the guy that said we should be nice to them or pay them off (our enemies) for a better future, that logic is borderline retarded. And here is why.

First its obvious that an Arab child has no predisposition to violence anymore than an American child. It all has to do with their upbringing. In short, they are taught to hate us. This hate comes from many sources, partly a lack of self-esteem when you compare the Arab world to the western world (why do they have all that stuff that we don't have?). Partly due to an 'easy out' in their religion that allows them to turn it into hatred of us "infidels". Religion is a great placator for the poor huddled masses - it prevents them from realizing the true source of their problems and focuses their anger elsewhere. Another part of their hatred is developed by their governments who are perfectly happy to keep their sheep baah'ing nicely under the spectre of the "evil infidels".

If we keep them happy with money, it hurts their self esteem - and makes them hate us. If we kiss their ass, that doesn't help either because they don't want nice words, they want to supercede us in wealth, culture, civilization and other things. We know that as long as they are beating their women, spending more time reading the Koran than science books, and hating on the Jews, that advancement of their civilization just isn't going to happen. They don't get that though, which leaves us in a pretty ****ty situation. If we try to help them (think Mujahadeen in Afghanistan), they are our buddies until they stop fighting then we're the a-holes again for "interfering". If we don't interfere, then they still want to one-up us, and they can't be happy that way either, because if we restrict our trade, then we're "holding them back". As a growing, prospering nation, the USA can't NOT have good resources (yes, including oil), and we can't isolate ourselves from everyone else.

At some point, we have to realize that the world is coming together, and there really isn't room for stupid backwards ideas about life. That means there will be conflict, and we can't just let them do it without response. In case anyone isn't keeping up, the REAL way towards peace is not to kiss their asses, but rather to bring them into the 20th century. And the USA won't be top dog forever, so we seriously need to take advantage of our influence while we still can (like over the next 100-200 years). We need to bring these backwards nations into the 21st century and show them the way of democracy, peace, invention, capitalism, and prosperity. Then they will have something to think about other than "why do I live in this hut fashioned from cow dung and rotting hay when that guy in America watches his 60" bigscreen and suckles on the teat of a fat paycheck".

You can have minor quibbles with the way we're progressing, but outrageious dissention with our ways like Art, Randall, and even the "let's just nuke them" fringe elements is just silly, IMO.

Cliff notes available at the front desk for $5.

 

Slim,

You amaze me! You obviously have'nt read any Hobbes! I laugh that you tried to put down someone for holdig a "Hobbsian" view of the world!

If you had read any Hobbes then you would have known that Hobbes can almost be acknowleged for coming up with the well known "Golden Rule."

HAhaaaaa...

 

just for laughts:

 

A lot of great posts here, no doubt.

But Nibblesworth, you are DEAD wrong.

You have written in a post earlier why the muslims hate the us, and you are not right. I am friends with several Iraqi people, and the reasons why they hate the US is pretty simple:

They hate you for policing the world, trying to tell them what to do and how to live. They hate the US for invading their country (You did it killing lots of civilians and brothers) - More people are getting killede everyday down there now, than before the US entered. As my friend said "Before the US came, we could walk safely on the streets, we cant now" - Now there are people walking around with AK's robbing everyone. Suicide bombers and other terrorists. They are angry on the us because you are comming to take their oil. (I could go on.. I've had an endless arguement with them )

It has NOTHING to do with the liberties we have in other countries. They don't even know what rigths their are in other countries, so that is not the reason.

I actually do agree in some of the things, and I don't think you can see them as an american. (America is a very patriotic country) - But I can as an outsider from a third part country. The US has a tendency to try an fix things places where they have no reasons to. There's alot of things in your own country that could be fixed first. For the rich country the US is, there is a lot of homeless people and suffering people. Instead of using 80billion dollars on the first night of bombing in Iraq, use them to get some of that people of the streets - Or what about using them to improve safety in public school, so that people don't get killed doing resesses - There's alot of gang activities in the major city, give som money to some Social civil (Leisure) centers where young people can hang out with 1st class equipment in them.

There's a lot of other things in your own country you could fix before interfering in other countries.

My 2 cents (and friends )

 

You can rant and rave about where I'm stationed, but the facts are most people that are for this war are only for sending others off to battle. You are one of the cowards that sits on their couch eager to be a patriot, as long as it doesn't involve you actually doing anything. Not every citizen will go overseas, some will provide support services at home to ensure missions are accomplished. But you aren't willing to sign on for one year to assist in doing something you pretend to be so for.

I also find it interesting that the military gave you the ASVAB at home, since they don't do it for anyone else. Maybe you're just special, or just full of ****. My money would say you're a d!p**** liar that never even took the ASVAB test.

And by the way, many people say if you don't like Bush, and you don't vote, then STFU. And that's what I'm saying here. If you're so for the war, prove yourself; or STFU. Because nobody needs to hear the worthless couch warriors that do nothing.

 

I restate my previous statement, which is that you are an idiot. The fact that you still make this statement is just hilarious. You can't support a war unless you fight? You are saying you can't believe in a cause unless you do it yourself! You can't support a football team unless you play. You can't back a political candidate unless your a candidate... where does it end? Don't you understand what you are saying? If the history of the world were governed by what you said, there would have been chaos. If everyone who didn't FIGHT in a war also didn't believe in it, then there would be some very divided countries, don't you think? THINK, Randall. THINK.

 

An please stop with this coward, stuff. It's absurd, given what you are basing it on. Wars are clearly supported by means other than fighting and working in armament factories, such as keeping a strong economy that pays for it. Understand division of labor.

I know more war heroes personally than you will ever meet in your life - cowards they are not - and none of them ascribe to this rubbish that you spout. Trust me - I have the edge of credibility in this matter.

 

The point that I always fell on was that even if they weren't an imeediate threat, they were a nascent threat. What a better world this would be if we had stopped Germany rearming in like 1939... It's shorsighted to say that if they can't destroy our country now, they won't be able to in the future, and that's not worth guarding against. When I was fortunate to hear Rumsfeld talk about the war, he never phrased it in terms of AMERICAN saftey. His concern was world safety and actually to a greater extent stability in the middle east. He said that he has personally spoken to every leader in the Arab world and they though Saddam was a threat and they want him out of there. They couldn't express their support publicly because if nothing happened, then they would be atop Saddam's **** list.

Basically my point is that EVERYONE thought and stil thinks that Saddam was a threat to world stability. If you don't think that, then you are the ignorant one who doesn't understand history or what this guy was all about. Let me put it in a way you can understand: he was bad and bad for the world. Having that regime gone makes the world a better place. Just like stopping Germany from rebuilding its military would have done.

 

Server in the army infintry 1970. Drafted by lottery, some of you may be old enough to remember that but I don't expect too many. A very unpopular war. I didn't run off to Canada like so many other did. I received a honorable, medical, discharge. I did what my country asked me to do. I didn't moan and groan about why I should or shouldn't go to Vietman. You do what your country asks you to do or go find a better country to live in. (Like maybe Iraq) . You can question are leaders that's what elections are all about. You vote for the person of your choice and live with the consequences. It's called democracy.
If you find a better system please let me know.

I think if there was a military draft today Canada would have a few more residence.

Dave

PS. Fighting terrorism for any reason is a just cause. Even if need a excuse to get the rest of the sleeping world to go along with you.

 

Much action in Hawaii, randall? LOL

 

"Drafted by lottery, some of you may be old enough to remember that"...yup, lottery # 34 - only lottery I ever 'won'.

Don't know why we really invaded Iraq, guessing it has more to do with the father/son relationship thing (you know, proving yourself to your father after a lifetime of mediocrity; finishing Dad's unfinished work) than anti-terrorism.

My personal opinion is the world, not just America, will never be at peace with Islam. I base this on 2 expierences: my father, who spent most of his life working in that part of the world for a company I wont mention but we all know - who warned me 20 years ago that Muslims will rule the world some day if the world (not just the US) doesn't wakeup.

And second, when living in the Bay Area, I had a close working relationship with a few Iranians. Very friendly people, always willing to help you out....until I comented on Iran's death warrant for Salmon Rushdie after 'The Satanic Versus' was relaesed. It was then made very clear to me by these 'friends' that ANYONE opposed to this sentence, and ANYONE making detrimental remarks against Islam must be killed.

Sept 11th was child's play compaired to what's in store for America and the world down the road. Bush just hit the Hornet's nest with a stick.

The real pisser about all this is, the vast majority of the middle eastern folks I've met and worked with (and its been quite a few) are just plain damn nice people.....