liberals....

[dissention]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

That is utter BS and you know it. If the US had responded on 9/12 alone and with full force against Afganistan, it would have been WWIII and you know it. Also, don't you think it was kind of okay to try and use diplomacy to save the thousands of innocent civilians not to mention out troops who died their. Also, correct me if I am wrong, but almost all intelligence indicates OBL was still in Afganistan when we went there. So, it not like he fled to another country in the meantime.

Read post #262. Don't put words in my mouth, pal, and say I advocated something that I didn't.

As for the intelligence, we all know how reliable our intel is, right? If he was still there, we would've caught him.

They gave him two months to leave at a snail's pace, don't color the water or talk about diplomacy. You and I both know this administration wrote the book on how not to be diplomatic.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

Yes. The UN inspectors didn't find anything and they weren't finished yet.

But SH did not give them accrate info in the beginning and he was playng his whole you cannot go here but you can go here game again. IT WAS HIS BURDEN - he did not meet it. He alone is responsible for the fate of Iraq.

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by GypsySorcerer

Starting in 1998 when Clinton bombed Iraq, Saddam had the opportunity to prove that the WMD were destroyed. He couldn't/wouldn't do that. I think we waited long enough.

Saddam couln't run the risk of letting his neighbors know he didn't have squat. He was damned if he did and damned if he didn't. If this president didn't have such a vendetta against him, I think a much better solution could have been worked out.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by dissention

Read post #262. Don't put words in my mouth, pal, and say I advocated something that I didn't.

As for the intelligence, we all know how reliable our intel is, right? If he was still there, we would've caught him.

They gave him two months to leave at a snail's pace, don't color the water or talk about diplomacy. You and I both know this administration wrote the book on how not to be diplomatic.

I asked a question. How is that putting words in your mouth? You get so testy when I am winning

[dissention]

Originally Posted by GypsySorcerer

But we gave Saddam months and months to prove he didn't have WMDs and you still think we should have given the UN weapon inspectors more time?

Two totally different scenarios. No one from Iraq attacked us ever.

You honestly believe that waiting two months to invade Afghanistan was actually going to benefit us?

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

But SH did not give them accrate info in the beginning and he was playng his whole you cannot go here but you can go here game again. IT WAS HIS BURDEN - he did not meet it. He alone is responsible for the fate of Iraq.

His neighbors and mortal enemies have nuclear weapons. What fool is going to say, here I am, you hate me, I am unarmed.

[dissention]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

I asked a question. How is that putting words in your mouth? You get so testy when I am winning

You started with the "if we attacked on 9/12" bull**** when you knew that was the farthest thing from the my mind or this conversation. Again, refer to post #262 and you'll see what I really said.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

Saddam couln't run the risk of letting his neighbors know he didn't have squat. He was damned if he did and damned if he didn't. If this president didn't have such a vendetta against him, I think a much better solution could have been worked out.

I will actually agree with that. But, I am unsure what could have worked. Everyone knew W was dead serious about the invasion. Many countries put heavy political pressure on SH to leave and we ofered to let him do so. He did not bend. So, what else could have been done I am unsure. I do think, however, we should have waited to build more world support and to train out troops better and possibly have avoided the prison abuse stuff, which most say came from the lack of training.

[dissention]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

But SH did not give them accrate info in the beginning and he was playng his whole you cannot go here but you can go here game again.

Foul!

That is an outright lie and you know it. Hans Blix and the UN refute your claim 100%.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by dissention

Two totally different scenarios. No one from Iraq attacked us ever.

You honestly believe that waiting two months to invade Afghanistan was actually going to benefit us?

Thay attacked our ally in 1991. All of this stems from that. So FFOOUULL

But, I agree, we should have waited for the reasons stated earlier.

[dissention]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Thay attacked our ally in 1991. All of this stems from that. So FFOOUULL

Again, no one from Iraq ever attacked us.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by dissention

Foul!

That is an outright lie and you know it. Hans Blix and the UN refute your claim 100%.

Once again, you are just wrong. SH submitted all those docs and the CD's of them and it was proven they were the same stuff he sent before. Then he started his "my palaces are exempt" schpeel when it was determined his palaces were more than just residences. Do you not remember that? That is what I am talking about. Moreover, he could lead Hans Blix all over the country and take him to tea, that does not mean he met his burden of proving he destroyed the WMD. To do that he had to produce the destroyes stuff, pictures of it, etc. He did not do that. Instead, once again, he said to the inspectors, you can go here go here go here. That was NOT meeting his burden. Why are you so willing to let him off on that?

[GypsySorcerer]

Originally Posted by dissention

Two totally different scenarios. No one from Iraq attacked us ever.

You honestly believe that waiting two months to invade Afghanistan was actually going to benefit us?

I don't see the logic in saying years weren't long enough for Saddam to prove he destroyed the weapons, but two months was too long to invade Afghanistan. I do not think two months is that long to wait considering the state of chaos this country was in.

[Sugar]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Actually, we gave SH over 11 years. But, I agree, I think it would have been better to let the final inspectors do their job even though SH would never have cooperated. Again, it was his burden to show he destroyed the WMD, not play hide and seek with us. But, I think that time owuld have allowed us to build a larger coalition, better ready our troops, and perhaps figure out a way to remove him in some other fashion like political pressure from the neighboring Arab states who allegedly hated him. In the end, however, I fear the only way to remove him, which Clinton, Kerry, essentially all of Congress, most of the world's major powers, and the UN all agreed needed to be done.

But this is about focus (at least in my mind )

Right, we let this thing drag on for 11 years already, so what was the big rush now? I absoutely think we should have done something sooner, but this had nothing to do with bin Laden. The link to Al-Q seemed far-fetched at best. I listened to Powell's speech to the UN when he was giving the reasons to invade Iraq and remember thinking, "Is there supposed to be evidence in here somewhere?"

As soon as we established bin Laden as the man and we had a line on where he was, I say give 48 hours to the Taliban to produce him or we were going to come and get him. This was an imminent response to something that had JUST happened in our country.

OK maybe not 48 hours, but not two months. I'm sitting here trying to recall the sentiment right after 9/11...I remember there was cheering in the streets of Pakistan...or maybe 48 hours..we took a "screw y'all" approach to Iraq, why not Afganistan?

Saddam was a tiger in a cage. Linking the two things was stupid.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by dissention

Again, no one from Iraq ever attacked us.

When an ally of the US is attacked it is as if the US is attacked - the US will and should respond. I cannot believe you did not know that