"Why is George W. Bush's disapproval rating the lowest of any president in modern history ? ( 68 % )"

The people touting those figures are doing so for hysterical value alone, not for any thoughtful dialog or to even remotely discuss the truth about Iraq.

Well, the methods used for getting these "hysterical" figures were standard that's done all over the world for a variety of metrics. And they're pretty accurate, tried tested and true methods that were being used. Nothing groundbreaking or fishy there. So what makes this any different? The whole issue behind the death toll in Iraq is that there's no body that's actually made an effort to figure out total casualties. Now it's officially handled by the Iraqi government but before that it was the CPA, who was too busy trying to rebuild a smashed country to worry about minor things like civillian casualties.

You can be against the freeing of iraq and the disposal of Saddam (why? I guess even maniacal meglomaniac have some friends)

I never said I was against the disposal of Saddam. The fact that he was a monster is not justification for an illegal invasion of the state of Iraq. There are "maniacal megalomaniacs" in countries all over the world, many of whom were supported by the U.S so long as they acted in the U.S interests (Suharto, the Shah, Pinochet, the list is very long) So why hasn't the US invaded those countries to spread freedom to those oppressed peoples? And what right do we have to say that we can invade other countries as we please, even if they haven't done anything to harm us? That's called pre-emptive warfare and on the international stage it escalates and destabilizes everything! There's a whole lot more evidence and impetus to go after a country like N Korea than ever there was for Iraq (Yes I know that we're not technically at peace with N Korea as it's still just an armistice)

you can be very much against the loss of American and allied lives - as after all, Iraqis dont vote or live next to you

Well, you're right there in that I am very much against the loss of American lives. In fact I'm pretty much against the loss of most life.

But when you start using Hysterical facts, then the discussion is over. And it becomes not a discussion of what is wrong or right, but about who can shout the loudest.

Once again, please point out why these 'facts' are so hysterical. I posted a quote from a report that was conducted by the Massachusett's Institute of Technology working with staff from John Hopkins University who used well known, established polling methods to estimate the death rate in Iraq post-invasion. Why is that hysterical?

And lastly, I will never devolve into a 'shouting match' with you. While we may disagree I fully respect your opinion and enjoy these discussions!

~It is the mark of an educated mind to entertain a thought without accepting it~ Aristotle

Successfully updated karma reason!

And by the way we are COMPLETELY justified to invade Iraq if they are: 1. Harboring and Aiding Terrorists

In that case, you are justified to invade all of Europe. Most of the 9/11 hijackers were at one point living out of Europe. You are also justified to invade all of north Africa and the middleast. Stop number 1 should be Saudi Arabia as most of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudis!

Successfully updated karma reason!

Hi, Dr. Guy -

First, with regard to Bush admin obfuscation and attempted blocking of any investigation into 9/11, I refer you to Kristin Breitweiser's Book, "Wake Up Call". Just read the open letter to Ann Coulter in the back - shouldn't take more than ten minutes. Mrs. Breitweiser's husband was killed in the New York 9/11 attacks, and she was disbelieving when the Bush admin tried to kill any thought of an investigation. So, she and other 9/11 widows, who came to be called the "Jersey Girls", made it their cause to put public pressure on the administration to investigate. They were stonewalled every step of the way, and the final report was edited by the White House. At least one reference to the incompetence of Condi Rice was stricken.

One source for the Iraq civilian casualty figure since our invasion is a country-wide group of Iraqi physicians overseen by epidemiologists from Johns Hopkins University's Bloomberg School of Public Health. The figure of 655,000 (about 500 a day) was published in the British Medical Journal "The Lancet", as reported by the Washington Post on October 11, 2006. There are plenty of other places to get similar numbers if you want to take the trouble.

Bush's Social Security reform wasn't passed because people all over the country from both parties let their elected reps know that it would be political suicide to vote for it. You're right, it's an exception (and a rare one) to the Republican Congress functioning as Dubya's rubber-stamp.

As to "habeas corpus", here we go for one more try. Bush claimed to power to declare anyone - anyone at all, an "illegal enemy combatant", according to criteria that are very vague. Such a person could then be detained indefinitely. Let's say this happened to you, Dr. Guy. You would be in prison, perhaps in Guantanomo. You would have no right to an attorney. You would have no right to a court date. You could be held literally forever. You wouldn't even have a right to know the charges against you. Are you with me so far? While in prison, you couldn't "bear" arms, you couldn't vote, you wouldn't be safe from unreasonable searches and seizures, and so on. You'd be in prison.

By the way, a former prosecutor, Vincent Bugliosi (guy who nailed Charles Manson) is making the case in a book that Bush could be tried for murder after his term in office is over. The rationale is that if Bush can be proved to have lied us into the Iraq War, he could be prosecuted for the murder of every American serviceperson killed in that war. PLEASE NOTE - I didn't say I agree with this - I didn't say I think it's a good idea. I am passing information without expressing an opinion.

For all you folks who say we did discover WMDs in Iraq, I'm very confused, as President Bush said in an interview in Britain just last week that we had not. Perhaps one of you should let him in on it, and me, too, while you're at it.

Oh, and while Saddam may have been aiding terrorists, by giving money to the families of suicide bombers in the Israeli theatre, he has never been proven to have aided Al Qaeda. He was a secular Arab, and was loathed by Bin Laden, according to what I've read. And you can read it, too.

Would someone tell me please, specifically, just how Saddam Hussein's Iraq was a military threat to the United States? I seldom believe Condi or Colin, but in 2001 they both said that Iraq was no threat to anyone.

Cheers to all.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Well, the methods used for getting these "hysterical" figures were standard that's done all over the world for a variety of metrics. And they're pretty accurate, tried tested and true methods that were being used.

Apparently not since they inflate the actual figures by a factor of 10-20. Anyone who uses that kind of method is not employed long.

I never said I was against the disposal of Saddam

I was using the royal you as in anyone can be, not you in particular.

In fact I'm pretty much against the loss of most life.

Which is fine and noble - but does not stop despots from taking it at will.

Once again, please point out why these 'facts' are so hysterical

When you inflate casualty figures by a factor of 10-20 (not percent, multiples), it no longer becomes a discussion of facts and reasons, but who can out gross the other. Simply put, the figures of 1 million killed since the occupation have been shown to be patently stupid and virtually impossible (not totally as sure, they may have sent the bodies to the moon on a space shuttle I suppose). A reasoned discussion/debate begins with reality, not wishful figures.

And lastly, I will never devolve into a 'shouting match' with you. While we may disagree I fully respect your opinion and enjoy these discussions!

I appoligize, as I indicated earlier here, I had not meant You Artysim, but You as in "Someone can". You have always been a great debater and a sound voice of reason for the Left - even when I know I am Right (pun intended).

Successfully updated karma reason!

Would one of you folks on the right address the Nuremberg Principles, please? We not only were adherents to them, we helped write them, and used them to prosecute (and hang) people who we felt had not followed the principles laid out in them. In other words, the principles laid out in them were so obvious that they should not have had to be written out.

It's easy to simply disregard every argument put forth that you don't like. I'm finding a lot of that here. A good example is the figure of 500,000 to 1,000,000 Iraqi civilian casualties. You have been told who came up with the figure, you've been told how the figure was arrived at, and if you've tried to find a source to dispute it or debunk it, you haven't said so. Rather, you've just said it's nonsense.

In February of 2001, Colin Powell in Cairo said: "He (Saddam) has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional force against his neighbors."

May, 2001, Powell said that Saddam hadn't been able to "build his military back up or to develop weapons of mass destruction for the last 10 years." He went on to say that the United States had kept Saddam "in a box."

In July, 2001, Condi Rice said of Saddam: "Saddam does not control the northern part of the country. We are able to keep his arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt."

It was statements like these, added to the fact that weapons inspectors were crawling all over Iraq, that made much of the world skeptical about Bush's veracity. And later, it was the release of the Downing Street Memo (which, contrary to claims made on this site, has never been proved to be anything other than authentic) that actually demonstrated that Iraq was a war of choice, and therefore a "war of aggression", as defined in the Nuremberg Principles.

If any one of you really thinks that a third-world country with a fourth-world army (one that in eight years could not even beat Iran, for heaven's sake) was a military threat to the United States, please explain it to me. Saddam was a secular Arab who had no truck with Al Qaeda - he loathed them, and they loathed him. Yes he supported terrorist organizations - who attacked Israel. He had nothing to do with 9/11. Was his army going to board cruise ships and invade New Jersey?

Successfully updated karma reason!

1) The United States and Germany were in a formal state of war with each other (they had both issued declarations of war against the other on the international stage)

And the US and Iraq were also in a formal state of war, ever since (what many who ignore non-western history call) the "first gulf war".

The truth is that Germany didn't attack the US in World War 2 until the US attacked Germany and declared war only as a formality. Germany also wasn't a threat to the US, only to US interests.

2) Germany had invaded and occupied France and many other countries. Also, Germany was officially allies with Japan who had attacked the U.S and were actively waging an aggressive war against the U.S.

And you would prefer for Iraq to become powerful enough to do that sort of thing again?

Rather a big "legal" war that costs millions of lives than a small "illegal" war that is much cheaper?

And btw, yes, European countries also "harboured" terrorists. But the difference was that the European countries did NOT know that those individuals would become terrorists and that the European countries DID prosecute those terrorists and cooperate with UN demands to do so.

Saddam harboured known terrorists and supported their attacks.

And if you (anyone really) think he was not a "threat", you probably don't consider terror attacks against Jews in Israel and elsewhere, which Saddam funded.

I admit that the number of WMD agents found in Iraq after the invasion was minimal, barely enough to kill a few ten thousand Jews or Kuwaitis.

Successfully updated karma reason!

It's easy to simply disregard every argument put forth that you don't like. I'm finding a lot of that here. A good example is the figure of 500,000 to 1,000,000 Iraqi civilian casualties. You have been told who came up with the figure, you've been told how the figure was arrived at, and if you've tried to find a source to dispute it or debunk it, you haven't said so. Rather, you've just said it's nonsense.

It's also easy to make up numbers and hope that nobody does the maths and notices. Plus you can act offended if people don't believe the bullshit.

I don't care who came up with the figure, because an appeal to authority is not a valid argument.

If some number doesn't work, it's wrong, no matter who came up with it.

Vanishing hundreds of bodies a day is not so simple. If it were, Saddam wouldn't have left us the mass graves as evidence for his murders. (I understand no such evidence is needed to condemn George Bush?)

Did you even do the maths? Did you know how many bodies per day you were talking about?

"Any person who commits an act which constitutes a crime under international law is responsible therefor and liable to punishment."

I now understand that means that Saddam can legally shoot at American aircraft but that George Bush cannot hold him responsible and punish him for it?

I am pretty sure the US did not sign those principles thinking that they ALLOW an Arab dictator to shoot down American aircraft and break cease-fire agreements, while they FORBID the US to use violence in return.

I am sure there would have been an appendix ("except Saddam Hussein"), if that had been the intended meaning of the principles.

Successfully updated karma reason!

After Pearl Harbor, Germany declared war on us and started attacking American shipping.

Talking to you is like teaching seventh grade, with one difference. Seventh graders are twelve, and are expected to be ignorant. For adults, ignorance is usually a choice. However, ignorance can be fixed. Take a class, read some books. Make sure you find books that don't have a particular point of view, and read several about the same subject.

By the way, I doubt that the Iraqi doctors made up "the maths", as you call them. If they had, they would probably have been caught by the epidemiologists from Johns Hopkins, unless they, too, made up "the maths". But if they had, they probably would have been caught by the publishers of "The Lancet", which enjoys an iron-clad reputation for accuracy. But even if the publishers of "The Lancet" were in on the plot to make up "the maths", the final article was vetted by "The Washington Post". They are the weakest link in the chain, but they are also the last.

Oh, by the way, the possibility that Saddam had enough WMDs to kill 10,000 Jews or Kuwaitis was absolutely NOT a legal justification for this moronic invasion and its aftermath. If possession of WMDs was justification for invasion, guess who has more WMDs than all the rest of the world put together? The United States.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Talking to you is like teaching seventh grade, with one difference. Seventh graders are twelve, and are expected to be ignorant. For adults, ignorance is usually a choice. However, ignorance can be fixed. Take a class, read some books. Make sure you find books that don't have a particular point of view, and read several about the same subject.

Same to you, you ignorant idiot. (Wow. That is fun! Why do I always wait for the other party to admit they ran out of arguments first?)

By the way, I doubt that the Iraqi doctors made up "the maths", as you call them. If they had, they would probably have been caught by the epidemiologists from Johns Hopkins, unless they, too, made up "the maths". But if they had, they probably would have been caught by the publishers of "The Lancet", which enjoys an iron-clad reputation for accuracy.

Still using appeal to authority as your "argument"?

As for the accuracy of the Lancet and your idea that since I disagree with you, I obviously haven't read enough, let me point you to this little gem:

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/analysis/beyond/reality-checks/

Problem is, I read more than you. You heard "Lancet" and decided that was good enough for an appeal to authority argument (which is a fallacy as you should know). I, like the Iraqi Body Count people (whom I disagree with politically), showed a bit more interest in the truth.

And it's not like nobody but me ever doubted the numbers:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6045112.stm

It seems to me like you simply read a number you liked, never did the maths do run the number through your bullshit detector (if you have one), never did any further research to see how the number was created and who disagrees, and then decided that anybody who doesn't believe the number is obviously stupid and/or ignorant.

I can imagine that you would rather talk to a seventh-grader.

Caught by the epidemiologists from John Hopkins? Year, right. And Lancet didn't even notice that theyr own two studies gave different results (they just kept the one with the higher number, apparently; how is that for fact-checking).

Maybe it's time for you to acknowledge that scientists, when it comes to politics, have an agenda just like we all do.

The Iraqi Body Count Web site have an agenda too. But they also have a bullshit detector.

So, take a class, read some books, and come back when you did at least learn how to question perceived authority. Don't just let them tell you things. It creates hatred.

A number that doesn't work is WRONG, regardless of the wonderfulness of the people who promote it.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Oh, by the way, the possibility that Saddam had enough WMDs to kill 10,000 Jews or Kuwaitis was absolutely NOT a legal justification for this moronic invasion and its aftermath. If possession of WMDs was justification for invasion, guess who has more WMDs than all the rest of the world put together? The United States.

a) I don't have reason to believe that the United States are going to attack me or my country or anybody for no good reason. (Note that that means that _I_ don't have reason to believe [...]. It doesn't mean that _YOU_ don't have such a reason.)

I still don't care about "legal" or "illegal". If I am ever handed a gas mask because of something that YOU don't consider a "legal justification" for an invasion, I will inform you as soon as I can via JoeUser. It's not "legal" or "illegal" because that is a romantic fairy tale. It's "gas mask" or "no gas mask".

c) There are enough countries in the world that would gladly invade the US if they could and enough countries that did try to invade Israel. So do tell me how valuable your differentiation between "legal" and "illegal" really is. The fact that you consider the invasion "illegal" is of no relevance to the terrorists (because it happened anyway) or the Kurds and Shiites (who had waited for it for decades).

If you can make your point against the invasion without using bogus numbers, insults, or your own (or anybody else's) definitions of "legal" and "illegal", you are welcome.

But if your discussion depends on bogus numbers and accusations that say that disagreement with you is ignorance, and you feel the need to point out that the invasion is "illegal", I cannot see what real argument you might be able to make.

Incidentally, the resistance against the Nazis within Germany and France as "illegal" too. And I have met people (on the net and in Germany) who actually believed that that was a good argument against the morality of the resistance (or "traitors", as they call them).

And the invasion of Normandy was certainly "illegal" too, namely according to Nazi law.

The "legal"/"illegal" system of morality doesn't work; but the "gas mask" system does.

I always use the "gas mask" system: those whose civilians need gas masks are right.

Please do tell me why your system is better!

Successfully updated karma reason!

Talking to you is like teaching seventh grade, with one difference. Seventh graders are twelve, and are expected to be ignorant. For adults, ignorance is usually a choice. However, ignorance can be fixed. Take a class, read some books. Make sure you find books that don't have a particular point of view, and read several about the same subject.

For someone who is always thumping the civilty book, you sure dont walk the walk. I cannot understand why, if you feel that your arguments are just and correct, you cannot then debate them on the merits with facts, instead of wallowing in childish mudslinging. You are guilty of what you just attempted (badly) to accuse your opposition of.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Hi, Dr. Guy -

It is not uncivil to point out that someone is ignorant. I'm frequently ignorant myself, and freely admit it. Case in point - I was defending FDR's policies and gave him credit for ending the Great Depression. One of your compatriots, I think it was ParaTed2k, told me that FDR's policies had actually lengthened the Great Depression. While I don't agree, less than five minutes' research showed me that a number of reputable economists and historians in a certain study shared his opinion. I gave him credit for having made me aware of this, pointed out that a majority of both the economists and historians in the study shared my opinion, and suggested that we call it an unresolvable point. Oh, I also told him that macroeconomics mystified me and that I was not competent to argue the point thoroughly.

In another discussion, I acknowledged to "KFC" that I can't match her knowledge of, and degree of immersion in, the Bible. We're now having a civil and, to me, interesting, discussion.

This is a political website, and if people are going to enter this discussion, then they should have a passing knowledge and familiarity with certain things - the Constitution in general, the Nuremberg Principles, "habeas corpus", the Geneva Convention, the price of gasoline when Bush took office, the amount of the budget surplus when Bush took office, and quite a bit more. If you're going to come to the table without knowing what you are talking about, then it's fair game to tell you.

As for Leauki, he makes some interesting points, including some that are provocative and which I'd be happy to discuss, but does so in such an emotional way that rational discussion is not possible. For instance, he states that he doesn't care about legal or illegal. That, IN MY OPINION, is the antithesis of what the United States has always claimed to stand for. Israel, too, for that matter - hence the trial of Eichmann. Unlike Leauki, whose response I reported, I don't call people names. I don't apply insulting adjectives to those arguing the other side. I also don't simply discount information that I am given (see my example in paragraph one).

Successfully updated karma reason!

If any one of you really thinks that a third-world country with a fourth-world army (one that in eight years could not even beat Iran, for heaven's sake) was a military threat to the United States, please explain it to me. Saddam was a secular Arab who had no truck with Al Qaeda - he loathed them, and they loathed him. Yes he supported terrorist organizations - who attacked Israel. He had nothing to do with 9/11. Was his army going to board cruise ships and invade New Jersey?

It is funny that you say that Iraq had a fourth world army. Up until the Gulf war it was the fourth largest army in the world, as well as the most battle tested army in the world. Everyone in the world of media stated their doubts that America had the ability to do anything other than lose ten thousand troops the first day of battle. We were going to lose and lose big! After the mother of all battles was over they still have not counted all the dead on the Iraqi side. We lost less than 500.

When we went in the second time because of clear violations of the armistice the whole world of media said that we were going to war for no reason. We went in and it was called going it alone. Even though there were many countries that were with us. Those countries did not matter to the media. The war was won in two weeks. The peace is still being worked on. And Iran jumped in because they know that if there is a working democracy in Iraq their days are numbered.

It was called a civil war even though it was started and financed by Iran. Now even that is winding down. They are losing and we are winning. The Iraqi government is starting to stand on its own and we no longer hear the crap about a civil war. Just like we no longer hear the crap about an illegal war except from diehards that refuse to accept the truth.

Here is my explanation to you that you asked for. When a nation is attacked by anyone fear grips the nations people. The only thing that can restore the nation is swift decisive action. The minute we hear of a malcontent he has to be jumped upon or we doom ourselves. We were fighting in Afghanistan and heard rumblings in Iraq. Instead of waiting for the damage we did something. Keep in mind that Saddam publicly stated more than once that he would sell or give his WMD to any group or organization that would use them against Israel and or America. Now given that those statements were made and the fact that Al Qaeda people wounded in Afghanistan were getting medical attention and protection from Iraq is more than enough justification for any rational person to say not again.
It does not matter that we did not find the WMD or if he had them. He made the threat and we had no way of knowing how serious he was. After the attacks on 9/11 do you want to roll those dice and say he is probably bluffing? Keep in mind that there were tons of WMD unaccounted for at the time and a little anthrax can go a long way.

In that case, you are justified to invade all of Europe. Most of the 9/11 hijackers were at one point living out of Europe. You are also justified to invade all of north Africa and the middleast. Stop number 1 should be Saudi Arabia as most of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudis!

This is good you changed your position to pro-war! You finally get it, I am proud of you.

Oh, and while Saddam may have been aiding terrorists, by giving money to the families of suicide bombers in the Israeli theatre, he has never been proven to have aided Al Qaeda. He was a secular Arab, and was loathed by Bin Laden, according to what I've read. And you can read it, too.

Up to this point you were doing well, you brought up stuff I had not considered so I let it slide without comment because I really did not care one way or the other. But this statement is not only incorrect it is a falsehood. Saddam had in his country members of AQ, it was widely reported on CNN, Washington Post, and the New York Times. These terrorist were recovering in Iraqi hospitals from wounds suffered Afghanistan. The Nation of Iraq was supporting Al Qaeda during a time of war. The one terrorist too hurt to be moved was taken out into the streets and shot dead by the Iraqi army when the news broke. One of the reporters that made the initial report of AQ in Iraq was taken to that street so he could see the execution and report on it so America would not have the excuse to invade.

Saddam was doing what he could to help anyone that opposed America and in this instance he was caught going over the line.

Oh, by the way, the possibility that Saddam had enough WMDs to kill 10,000 Jews or Kuwaitis was absolutely NOT a legal justification for this moronic invasion and its aftermath. If possession of WMDs was justification for invasion, guess who has more WMDs than all the rest of the world put together? The United States.

Have to disagree with you here. The armistice between Iraq and the allied nations was clear. They agreed to get rid of all WMD and allow UN inspectors free access to the nations to verify this. So if he had ANY WMD he was in violation of the agreement and any allied nation would be free to resume the war. Because he was harboring known terrorist and protecting them from the war that, according to the Geneva Conventions, strips a nation of its neutrality and brings them into the war. Funny how people like to use the Conventions to help people not covered by them and ignore the ones that make their argument weak. Russia has the worlds largest stockpile of WMD.

Successfully updated karma reason!

I'm on vacation.

So many inaccuracies to your piece, I'm not even going to bother. It would be too much like work.

Have a nice day.

Successfully updated karma reason!

So many inaccuracies to your piece, I'm not even going to bother. It would be too much like work.

You are such a tease! Feel free to stop by when you get home and point out the parts you have a problem with.

enjoy your vacation.

Successfully updated karma reason!

I'm on vacation for the summer, and travel in late July.

Okay, Paladin. Please provide documentary evidence of Saddam saying publicly that he would sell of give chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons to any terrorist group who would use them to attack the United States or Israel. Also, I don't, just because you say so, believe that Al Qaeda fighters were receiving medical treatment in Iraq. Evidence, please.

As to the first Gulf War, yes, I remember the hype about the mother of all battles, and we'd better go over with 20,000 body bags, and all that other horse manure. I thought it was nonsense at the time, and so did my military friends because Iraq had no air power. In a desert war, who controls the air wins. The size of the Iraqi army was irrelevant. Its battle experience was against Iran, not against a first-world army. To those who study military history in my acquaintance, the outcome was completely predictable and as one-sided as the Battle of Omdurman.

Russian nuclear stockpiles may be bigger than ours, true, but I believe our chemical and bioweapons stockpiles are bigger. This info is classified, so point to you since I can't prove it.

Iraq did have weapons inspectors crawling all over it before this war, and they left because the Bush Administration told them that an attack was imminent. They left more or less kicking and screaming, and one of them, Scott Ritter, is still on the scene, talking about how all intelligence indicating that Saddam was harmless was simply ignored. The Downing Street Memo confirmed this, stating that Bush was "fixing the intelligence to fit the policy" (probably not a perfect quote, but close).

No WMD were found in Iraq. And, if we are going to war with countries because they have threatened us in the past, why didn't we invade Saudi Arabia. After all, 19 of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi, Osama bin Laden is a Saudi, and the House of Saud supports hundreds of madrasas, or religious schools, that preach anti-American hatred and promote jihad (holy war) against us. As a matter of fact, before our invasion of Iraq, RAND generated a report saying that Iraq was not a threat to us, but Saudi Arabia was.

Remember, please, that Iraq was an artificial construct, created after World War I. I think it is most likely that when we leave, it will devolve into three separate entities, with the Kurds in the North, and the Sunni and Shi'a splitting what's left. Are you familiar with the difference between Sunni and Shi'a Muslims (not being snide, honest - it's just that many people aren't) and their long history of violent antipathy to one another?

I make no bones about it. I think Iraq was/is a bad and wrong war, that it has taken our eye off the important ball, who is bin Laden, and that it has been incredibly badly managed. I think the prosecution of the Iraq War has weakened the United States military and diplomatically. I think that the torture committed under our flag and in our country's name is a literal shame, and I will not be surprised if a court elsewhere in the world (perhaps the Hague), charges Bush, Cheney, Rummy, Condi, and others as war criminals.

On the lighter side, I read at Buzzflash.com that in June of 2000 (as reported by Drudge), candidate Bush stated that the outrageous price of oil (at that time between $20 and $30 a barrel) was all the fault of Clinton and Gore. Check it out if you have a doubt.

Successfully updated karma reason!

For instance, he states that he doesn't care about legal or illegal. That, IN MY OPINION, is the antithesis of what the United States has always claimed to stand for.

Actually, I think your definitions of "legal" and "illegal" is the antithesis of what the United States has always stood for.

You seem to think that "legal" and "illegal" exist objectively without an authority. It's not true.

Israel, too, for that matter - hence the trial of Eichmann.

Which many considered illegal. But guess what? I don't care about their opinions.

Unlike Leauki, whose response I reported, I don't call people names.

"Talking to you is like teaching seventh grade, with one difference. Seventh graders are twelve, and are expected to be ignorant. For adults, ignorance is usually a choice. However, ignorance can be fixed. Take a class, read some books. Make sure you find books that don't have a particular point of view, and read several about the same subject."

I don't apply insulting adjectives to those arguing the other side.

"ignorant"

I also don't simply discount information that I am given (see my example in paragraph one).

Perhaps you should discount information occasionally. Believing whatever you are told and dismissing questions as "ignorant" doesn't make you seem that clever.

Successfully updated karma reason!

So if he had ANY WMD he was in violation of the agreement and any allied nation would be free to resume the war.

But... but... but... resuming war against a party in violation of a cease-fire agreement is "illegal", isn't it?

No WMD were found in Iraq.

I suppose we will just to have accept that lie.

Successfully updated karma reason!

It is not uncivil to point out that someone is ignorant.

First, you went beyond ignorant. You equated the writer to a pre-teen, hardly a debating point. Second, the only cause for your rant was that the writer refused to agree with you, and had his own set of circumstances that caused him to come to different conclusions. WHile you are entitled to your opinion that he is ignorant, by so doing, you basically conceded you did not have a rebuttal to his stance.

Admitting ignorance of facts is one thing. We all do that as none of us know everything. Labeling someone ignorant because they dont agree with you is different. It ends the debate.

Finally, dont get me wrong. This is not a High school English class, and primarily a forum to express opinions. This thread was started by an opinion - ShadowWar's view of Bush. So at times, we do tell each other that we are stupid, idiots, morons, ignorant, or . However most of us then dont go around whining about civility either.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Saddam was a secular Arab who had no truck with Al Qaeda - he loathed them, and they loathed him. Yes he supported terrorist organizations - who attacked Israel. He had nothing to do with 9/11. Was his army going to board cruise ships and invade New Jersey?

Does it matter? A common myth is that we deposed Saddam because he was somehow either a: Respsonsible for 9-11, or b: was in league with Al Qaeda. Both are false myths. Bush declared war on Terrorism! YOu admit Saddam was involved with it (and heavily so). It matters not that his brand was not flying planes (just teaching others to do that). The war is an attempt to minimize terrorism. many here have argued that is a stupid and senseless goal - akin to chasing ghosts since Terrorism is a concept not a nation state. But no one is arguing that Saddam was not involved in it. And only the dishonest continually bring up the lie that Saddam was part of 9-11 or Al Qaeda and the reason the Coalition went in to begin with.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Terrorism is a tactic, and you can't declare war on a tactic. As you point out, only the dishonest bring up the lie that Saddam was in on 9/11 and had a relationship with Al Qaeda. Funny, all those folks seem to be on your side of the aisle.

It is to your great credit that you are not among them. Kudos to you, for real.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Also, I don't, just because you say so, believe that Al Qaeda fighters were receiving medical treatment in Iraq. Evidence, please.

WWW Link

We have solid reporting of senior level contacts between Iraq and Al Qaida going back a decade. Credible information indicates that Iraq and Al Qaida have discussed safe haven and reciprocal non-aggression. We have solid evidence of the presence in Iraq of Al Qaida members, including some who have been in Baghdad. We have credible reporting that Al Qaida leaders sought contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire WMD capabilities. The reporting also stated that Iraq has provided training to Al Qaida members in the areas of poisons and gases and making conventional bombs. Iraq's increased support to extremist Palestinians, coupled with growing indications of a relationship with Al Qaida, suggest that Baghdad's links to terrorists will increase, even absent U.S. military action."

Russian nuclear stockpiles may be bigger than ours, true, but I believe our chemical and bioweapons stockpiles are bigger. This info is classified, so point to you since I can't prove it.

Our chemical and biological stockpiles have been brought down to a very low number. The only reason we still have some is the environmentalist won’t let us destroy them. Our policy since the 1970’s has been that any attack with the use of any WMD on US soil would be retaliated with nuclear weapons rather than tit for tat. Since then we have been burning our stockpiles.

Iraq did have weapons inspectors crawling all over it before this war, and they left because the Bush Administration told them that an attack was imminent. They left more or less kicking and screaming, and one of them, Scott Ritter, is still on the scene, talking about how all intelligence indicating that Saddam was harmless was simply ignored.

This is true, what you leave out is that for years the inspectors were in and kicked out several times and the last time were invited back to the country only because we were going to invade. This was hoped to slow down if not stop the invasion. President Bush was not having any more of that so he told them we are going in and get those people out. It was a ploy, Mr. Ritter it was later found out to have received some sort of remuneration from Iraq for objecting to the invasion, since before he was screaming publicly that Iraq had WMD and was hiding it from the inspectors.

No WMD were found in Iraq. And, if we are going to war with countries because they have threatened us in the past, why didn't we invade Saudi Arabia. After all, 19 of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi, Osama bin Laden is a Saudi, and the House of Saud supports hundreds of madrasas, or religious schools, that preach anti-American hatred and promote jihad (holy war) against us. As a matter of fact, before our invasion of Iraq, RAND generated a report saying that Iraq was not a threat to us, but Saudi Arabia was.

The difference is that the house of Saud is not the government of Saudi Arabia. The family rules the country but officially they are different. Iraq’s political leader made the threats meaning he was speaking for his country not himself or his family. Had he parsed his words he would still be alive and a thorn in our sides.

make no bones about it. I think Iraq was/is a bad and wrong war, that it has taken our eye off the important ball, who is bin Laden, and that it has been incredibly badly managed. I think the prosecution of the Iraq War has weakened the United States military and diplomatically.

Here we disagree. It was needed and it was done, that can not be changed. Mismanaged, can’t argue with you there. Too many people trying to achieve too many conflicting agenda.

Bin laden, dirt bag that he is or was, is not the problem anymore. He has shot is wad and that is all he had was one large attack that fizzled. As long as he is running for his life he can’t mess with us, and the current world climate will not allow him a safe haven from which to plan and organize another large scale attack.

Diplomatically you are wrong. Every country except one that opposed us going into Iraq has had a change in government leaders and those elected leaders are pro rather than anti American. France has been anti American since the Eisenhower administration and has elected a pro American president. Germany has been leaning away from us for decades now have a pro American chancellor. Russia the last of the axis of idiots has had a change in leadership but is the hand picked puppet of the last leader so there is no change there. It seems that those nations wanted a pro American head of state and got what they wanted.

I think that the torture committed under our flag and in our country's name is a literal shame, and I will not be surprised if a court elsewhere in the world (perhaps the Hague), charges Bush, Cheney, Rummy, Condi, and others as war criminals.

Please be specific here. The only torture I am aware of is water boarding and that is not all that bad. I went through it many times and it is uncomfortable but does not leave any lasting injury or mental anguish. This has only been used once or twice since the war on terror began and the people it was used on were terrorists of a high order. Every military person who goes through special operations training is subjected to it. If given the choice between what other countries use, (electrodes to the genitals till the pain is so bad you crush your own teeth, just before you snap your own spine from the convulsions) or some one throwing water in my face for 30 seconds. I want the bath!

On the lighter side, I read at Buzzflash.com that in June of 2000 (as reported by Drudge), candidate Bush stated that the outrageous price of oil (at that time between $20 and $30 a barrel) was all the fault of Clinton and Gore. Check it out if you have a doubt.

I don’t doubt it at all, I remember Speaker Pelosi saying that two dollars a gallon was horrible and that now the democrats are in charge that will change. Yup, in less than two years the price is no longer two dollars a gallon, cheers for Speaker Pelosi! Now it is 130 a barrel and four dollars a gallon. Got to love that swift action on her part.

On a serious note I could not find the site that had Saddam saying he would sell or give his WMD to anyone that would use it against Israel or the US. The link I had is not up any more. I will continue to search.

Successfully updated karma reason!

But no one is arguing that Saddam was not involved in it. And only the dishonest continually bring up the lie that Saddam was part of 9-11 or Al Qaeda and the reason the Coalition went in to begin with.

You are correct my friend. I beg to differ with you on one small point. Saddam was involved with AQ for years. No one has suggested that he was in any way involved with 9/11 but he was involved with the first attack on the World Trade Center since the planner of the attack got into the US on a valid Iraqi passport and people involved in the attack that escaped fled to Iraq for protection.

People do make the mistake of equating Saddam and AQ with Saddam, AQ and 9/11. The difference is that we have yet to uncover any proof that he was involved in 9/11 and no one in the administration has ever said there was. MSNBC made that connection and attributed it to the administration but has never produced proof of this and that is what most people point to pro or con the war in Iraq. If there was proof that he was, Iraq would have been first on our hit list. Since no country was proved to be actively involved in the attacks for obvious reasons we had to go after the terrorists themselves, scattered around the world.

All in all I have to say that the president has done a good job. Sure there were missteps and mistakes but people are human. On the whole the current president did very well given the mess he walked into and the two messes that were dumped in his lap the first 9 months of his administration. Why people don’t see that is beyond me.

Successfully updated karma reason!

On the lighter side, I read at Buzzflash.com that in June of 2000 (as reported by Drudge), candidate Bush stated that the outrageous price of oil (at that time between $20 and $30 a barrel) was all the fault of Clinton and Gore. Check it out if you have a doubt.

Humorous in retrospect. Kind of like how Carter trashed Ford for the inflation and jobless rate in 76. And for those of us old enough, we know what happened between 76 and 80! The misery index went from about 11 to over 20!

Successfully updated karma reason!

Good old Jimmy Carter! He is the second reason I left the democrat party.

I am starting to see a trend here doc. Governor Carter trashed unemployment and inflation of the republicans and then did it worse when he became president.

Speaker Pelosi trashed the republican congress for high fuel prices and when she took over the prices tripled.

Yes, I finally see how it works. The democrats try to do republicans one better. I just wish they understood that the direction they take us is not the one we need to go in.

Successfully updated karma reason!

"Why is George W. Bush's disapproval rating the lowest of any president in modern history ? ( 68 % )"

"Why is George W. Bush's disapproval rating the lowest of any president in modern history ? ( 68 % )"

uneducated in reality??