Polls are also worthless unless you get the full internals on them.
Example Poll:
Do you think Rym and Scott are doing the right thing with GeekNights?
That is the poll, but what we may not hear is the "internal data."
5% say yes 15% say no, they want a fifth day 25% say no because the podcast is too long 20% say no because the podcast is too short. etc....
The same thing occurs with polls on Iraq. Someone may answer "No, the president is wrong on Iraq," but the reason they say that is NOT because they want the war over, but because they want an escalation of the war.
Meanwhile, the reporter will drop off the "whys" and just report that 75% of people "disapprove" of the way Bush is handling the Iraq war...
Also Furthermore, calling it a "War in Iraq" is also misleading, as Iraq is just one theatre in the "war on terror." Sort of like polling people on the "war in France" during World War rather than on the war itself. It's also no longer a war: it's a clean-up operation at this stage.
Also, calling it a "War in Iraq" is also misleading as Iraq is just one theatre in the "war on terror."
Perhaps we should just call it the occupation.
Having a "war" against a concept or word, like "terror" or "drugs" is probably the most idiotic idea I can imagine. Besides, if the US had actually been serious about fighting "terror," how come we invaded IraQ? -cough- Saudi Arabia -cough- Iran -coughcough- How come we practically abandoned Afghanistan in order to invade a mostly harmless, economically devastated, politically stable nation that had nothing to do with any terror in the United States?
Iraq is, if nothing else, now a seething breeding ground for people who actually -will- be terrorists some day. I consider the invasion to be probably the greatest mistake made by the leadership of the US in my lifetime.
Rumsfeld is stepping down now as Secretary of Defense. It looks like the new man on the job is Robert Gates. Should be interesting to see what happens now.
I brain farted for a second there listening to the press conference. I heard Bob Gates but I thought Bill Gates. Now wouldn't that be something? "Sir, the North Koreans have launched a nuclear missile at one of our Alaskan military outposts!" "Don't worry. We'll release a patch for it at the end of the month."
If we did not go in then the UN is nothing more than a paper tiger.
I do think the UN is a paper tiger but... You can only draw so many "lines in the sand" that your enemy crosses before you have to do something.
Put it this way:
Someone slaps you so you tell them, "do it again and I kick your ass." Then they slap you again and you once more reply, "do it again and I kick your ass." At what point do you stop talking and kick the guys ass?
Someone slaps you so you tell them, "do it again and I kick your ass." Then they slap you again and you once more reply, "do it again and I kick your ass." At what point do you stop talking and kick the guys ass?
What exactly did we tell Iraq to do that they didn't do? I'm pretty sure the only thing we told them to do was not to make WMDs. As we all know, they didn't have any. It's more like you tell someone to shut up. They stop talking. Then you tell them to shut up. Then they say "I didn't say anything!" Now they've said something, so you beat them up.
What exactly did we tell Iraq to do that they didn't do? I'm pretty sure the only thing we told them to do was not to make WMDs. As we all know, they didn't have any.
I'm no fan of the Iraq war, but that's re-writing history. The UN told them not to make WMDs. The UN also told them to allow inspections to ensure that they were not making WMDs. Iraq turned the inspection process into a total joke. If they cooperated fully with inspections, there would have been no reason to invade.
What exactly did we tell Iraq to do that they didn't do? I'm pretty sure the only thing we told them to do was not to make WMDs. As we all know, they didn't have any.
I'm no fan of the Iraq war, but that's re-writing history. The UN told them not to make WMDs. The UN also told them to allow inspections to ensure that they were not making WMDs. Iraq turned the inspection process into a total joke. If they cooperated fully with inspections, there would have been no reason to invade.
I have to words for you, Hans Blix. He was the inspector. He went to Iraq. He said there were no WMDs. After the invasion he was proved right. He went to Iraq. He did the inspecting. He disagrees with you. You lose.
As far as the Iraq thing goes, if you are going to use the argument that they went in because it got to a point where Saddam had broken so many UN deadlines that something needed to be done then you have to follow it to the logical conclusion. What about China, Indonesia, the Sudan, Zimbabwe, Israel, Pakistan etc., etc.. Why can these countries abuse human rights and the UN?
Regardless of whether there were WMDs, the problem was that Hussein repeatedly ignored UN mandates -- agreed to by his own Iraqi ambassadors -- to allow inspectors access to suspected sites. I am not defending the war in any way, but this is a clear example of a fallacy of distraction. The fact that there were no WMDs is irrelevant; what counts here is that continued breach of a contract with the UN caused a perceived security threat that could not be discounted without relegating it to ad ignoratium assumptions.
So the question is this: What would have been a better course of action? Between the end of the first Gulf War (1991) and the invasion of Iraq (2003), UN weapons inspectors did, in fact, find WMDs in Iraq. But inspectors were kicked out of the country by Hussein in 1998, and were not allowed to return for four years.
In the interim, there was an entire decade of debate, accord violations, treaty breaches, and outright Iraqi threats as a result of the inspection debacle. Finally, Security Council Resolution 1441 was passed in November 2002 to force inspectors back into the country -- at which time, magically, Hans Blix found that there weren't any more weapons.
Bushie said "Hell, yeah, they're still there, cowpokes!" and we were off to the races.
But what pisses me off is that most ignorant Americans don't understand the full history of the Iraq situation (mostly because they don't read newspapers) and they write Iraq off as a harmless little fella who got a bad rap because of Commander Cuckoo Bananas. Hussein and company are by no means innocent bystanders to the whole affair, and they did constitute a huge security risk with existing chemical and biological weapons development programs.
Here is the link for the US State Department in regards to Iraq/UN resolutions.
As for tuttles argument... We can only go after so many problem areas at once. Besides look at all the good things that occurred after the invasion...
Libya gave up it's weapons program Syria agreed (or so they said) to leave Lebanon Iran started pushing for Nukes... Wait a minute... That's not a good thing but, those same students who started the revolution also thought Reagan defeating Carter would be good for them...
As for the Dems controlling the house and possibly the senate... It's a good thing.
Because they now have the power they can't talk up "cut and run" strategies as they are in power and they will take the blame when that strategy fails.
It's easy to shout from the minority that the majority is clueless. Now that they are the majority they have to actually tell us their plan.
Because the media tends to side more with Democrats than Republicans in regards to the war, I expect a drop in "Iraq death stories" and a rise in stories that will paint a picture of a stable Iraq from which we can withdraw troops.
As for tuttles argument... We can only go after so many problem areas at once.
Oh you mean like finishing the war in Afghanistan before you start a new one in Iraq?
OK...
Are you stating you are angry because we tried to fight more then one battle at the same time?
Because earlier you stated that there are so many other areas that need our attention and now you complain because we were trying to attend to more then one thing at the same time?
Check this out: UN Resolutions on Iraq... Please note the name of the website when reading it's contents/opinions.
Since when does UN mean US? How come the UN opposed our involvement?
The UN wanted to wait, since more and more evidence was coming in that Iraq wasn't in fact a threat, and that they had no weapons. Why on Earth should the US military enforce UN resolutions, let alone against the wishes of the UN itself?!?
Check this out:UN Resolutionson Iraq... Please note the name of the website when reading it's contents/opinions.
Since when does UN mean US? How come the UN opposed our involvement?
The UN wanted to wait, since more and more evidence was coming in that Iraq wasn't in fact a threat, and that they had no weapons. Why on Earth should the US military enforce UN resolutions, let alone against the wishes of the UN itself?!?
Since when is the UN in a position to decide whether the US can use military force? And why do you think the UN is the end-all and be-all of government bodies?
The UN has a terrible track record in mediating disputes, mainly because it refuses to take any kind of action. Where was the UN to stop genocide in Rwanda? For that matter, where were we? Where is the UN in reversing the Chinese occupation of Tibet, or the exile of the Dhali Lama? What is the UN doing to halt nuclear proliferation in North Korea?
It IS a paper tiger. The UN doesn't take action unless we force it to -- think Clinton's iron-handed push to use force in Bosnia -- and it doesn't operate without US funding and troops, of which we comprise nearly 80 percent. The UN was nearly disbanded at the turn of the century because we refused to pay our dues, and it was looking a bankruptcy.
Since when is the UN in a position to decide whether the US can use military force? And why do you think the UN is the end-all and be-all of government bodies?
Steve's primary argument for the invasion was that the UN resolutions were passed against Iraq. The US used these as part of the pretext for the invasion. If the US is going to buck the will of the UN in order to act militarily on its own, it really has no place citing UN resolutions as part of the justification for belligerence.
I wasn't supporting the UN. I was merely pointing out that UN resolutions are a poor rationale for a unilateral US invasion.
The UN was, however, right to wait. Everyone needs to remember that there WEREN'T ANY WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION. We found jack all. Iraq had a barely functioning military, let alone force projection capabilities. The regime, while tyrannical, was far more stable and less deadly than what we've put into place since we came in guns blazing It was no threat to its own neighbors, let alone the US, since the defeat in the first Gulf War.
There is no evidence anywhere to suggest that Iraq was funding terror, planning attacks on the US, building weapons of mass destruction, or anything of the sort. The invasion was a costly and stupid mistake that has now embroiled the US in the long and bitter occupation of a hostile foreign land that will fall into civil war the moment we leave. We destroyed a relatively peaceful and stable power, replacing it with chaos.
If you believe that batshit propaganda site, you are truly the most gullible person I have ever known to exist. With the most meager effort of checking the sources you can find it is based almost entirely on hearsay and lies.
I think the problem here is that you are not making your opinion based upon the real physical evidence, but on hearsay. If I believed that all that hearsay was true, as you do, I would come to the same conclusion that you have come to. However, I do not believe that hearsay. I believe only what the physical real evidence supports, and I disbelieve anything else that is not supported by evidence. Why don't you start from the beginning again? Research the real physical evidence for what was going on in Iraq, what Iraq was like, what the UN said, what the inspectors did, what happened after the first Gulf War, etc. You will see that many things you presently believe to be fact are just made up craziness.
You seem to be reasonable. You are drawing reasonable conclusions, but they are based upon false information. When you realize what the truth is, I think you might draw the correct conclusion. You just have to be willing to accept that things you think you know are wrong. It is painfully obvious you are heavily influenced by a great deal of propaganda. If you refuse to accept that fact, I can help you no more. If you refuse to believe the obvious and real evidence put before you, then you are as helpless as those who support intelligent design.
Comments
Example Poll:
Do you think Rym and Scott are doing the right thing with GeekNights?
That is the poll, but what we may not hear is the "internal data."
5% say yes
15% say no, they want a fifth day
25% say no because the podcast is too long
20% say no because the podcast is too short. etc....
The same thing occurs with polls on Iraq. Someone may answer "No, the president is wrong on Iraq," but the reason they say that is NOT because they want the war over, but because they want an escalation of the war.
Meanwhile, the reporter will drop off the "whys" and just report that 75% of people "disapprove" of the way Bush is handling the Iraq war...
Also Furthermore, calling it a "War in Iraq" is also misleading, as Iraq is just one theatre in the "war on terror." Sort of like polling people on the "war in France" during World War rather than on the war itself. It's also no longer a war: it's a clean-up operation at this stage.
I didn't name any names.
Having a "war" against a concept or word, like "terror" or "drugs" is probably the most idiotic idea I can imagine. Besides, if the US had actually been serious about fighting "terror," how come we invaded IraQ? -cough- Saudi Arabia -cough- Iran -coughcough- How come we practically abandoned Afghanistan in order to invade a mostly harmless, economically devastated, politically stable nation that had nothing to do with any terror in the United States?
Iraq is, if nothing else, now a seething breeding ground for people who actually -will- be terrorists some day. I consider the invasion to be probably the greatest mistake made by the leadership of the US in my lifetime.
"Sir, the North Koreans have launched a nuclear missile at one of our Alaskan military outposts!"
"Don't worry. We'll release a patch for it at the end of the month."
If we did not go in then the UN is nothing more than a paper tiger.
I do think the UN is a paper tiger but... You can only draw so many "lines in the sand" that your enemy crosses before you have to do something.
Put it this way:
Someone slaps you so you tell them, "do it again and I kick your ass." Then they slap you again and you once more reply, "do it again and I kick your ass." At what point do you stop talking and kick the guys ass?
Evidence 1
Evidence 2
Wikipedia
The Book
It will be trivial for me to find more evidence, although unnecessary.
So the question is this: What would have been a better course of action? Between the end of the first Gulf War (1991) and the invasion of Iraq (2003), UN weapons inspectors did, in fact, find WMDs in Iraq. But inspectors were kicked out of the country by Hussein in 1998, and were not allowed to return for four years.
In the interim, there was an entire decade of debate, accord violations, treaty breaches, and outright Iraqi threats as a result of the inspection debacle. Finally, Security Council Resolution 1441 was passed in November 2002 to force inspectors back into the country -- at which time, magically, Hans Blix found that there weren't any more weapons.
Bushie said "Hell, yeah, they're still there, cowpokes!" and we were off to the races.
But what pisses me off is that most ignorant Americans don't understand the full history of the Iraq situation (mostly because they don't read newspapers) and they write Iraq off as a harmless little fella who got a bad rap because of Commander Cuckoo Bananas. Hussein and company are by no means innocent bystanders to the whole affair, and they did constitute a huge security risk with existing chemical and biological weapons development programs.
Here is the link for the US State Department in regards to Iraq/UN resolutions.
As for tuttles argument... We can only go after so many problem areas at once. Besides look at all the good things that occurred after the invasion...
Libya gave up it's weapons program
Syria agreed (or so they said) to leave Lebanon
Iran started pushing for Nukes... Wait a minute... That's not a good thing but, those same students who started the revolution also thought Reagan defeating Carter would be good for them...
As for the Dems controlling the house and possibly the senate... It's a good thing.
Because they now have the power they can't talk up "cut and run" strategies as they are in power and they will take the blame when that strategy fails.
It's easy to shout from the minority that the majority is clueless. Now that they are the majority they have to actually tell us their plan.
Because the media tends to side more with Democrats than Republicans in regards to the war, I expect a drop in "Iraq death stories" and a rise in stories that will paint a picture of a stable Iraq from which we can withdraw troops.
Stay the Course!
Are you stating you are angry because we tried to fight more then one battle at the same time?
Because earlier you stated that there are so many other areas that need our attention and now you complain because we were trying to attend to more then one thing at the same time?
It does not mean we put blinders on and charge straight ahead no matter what...
The UN wanted to wait, since more and more evidence was coming in that Iraq wasn't in fact a threat, and that they had no weapons. Why on Earth should the US military enforce UN resolutions, let alone against the wishes of the UN itself?!?
The UN has a terrible track record in mediating disputes, mainly because it refuses to take any kind of action. Where was the UN to stop genocide in Rwanda? For that matter, where were we? Where is the UN in reversing the Chinese occupation of Tibet, or the exile of the Dhali Lama? What is the UN doing to halt nuclear proliferation in North Korea?
It IS a paper tiger. The UN doesn't take action unless we force it to -- think Clinton's iron-handed push to use force in Bosnia -- and it doesn't operate without US funding and troops, of which we comprise nearly 80 percent. The UN was nearly disbanded at the turn of the century because we refused to pay our dues, and it was looking a bankruptcy.
I wasn't supporting the UN. I was merely pointing out that UN resolutions are a poor rationale for a unilateral US invasion.
The UN was, however, right to wait. Everyone needs to remember that there WEREN'T ANY WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION. We found jack all. Iraq had a barely functioning military, let alone force projection capabilities. The regime, while tyrannical, was far more stable and less deadly than what we've put into place since we came in guns blazing It was no threat to its own neighbors, let alone the US, since the defeat in the first Gulf War.
There is no evidence anywhere to suggest that Iraq was funding terror, planning attacks on the US, building weapons of mass destruction, or anything of the sort. The invasion was a costly and stupid mistake that has now embroiled the US in the long and bitter occupation of a hostile foreign land that will fall into civil war the moment we leave. We destroyed a relatively peaceful and stable power, replacing it with chaos.
There was no rational justification for war.
Relative to what?
As for being "stable"... It's easy to be "stable" when you kill off all of your political opponents.
Saddam's Terrorist Funding
I think the problem here is that you are not making your opinion based upon the real physical evidence, but on hearsay. If I believed that all that hearsay was true, as you do, I would come to the same conclusion that you have come to. However, I do not believe that hearsay. I believe only what the physical real evidence supports, and I disbelieve anything else that is not supported by evidence. Why don't you start from the beginning again? Research the real physical evidence for what was going on in Iraq, what Iraq was like, what the UN said, what the inspectors did, what happened after the first Gulf War, etc. You will see that many things you presently believe to be fact are just made up craziness.
You seem to be reasonable. You are drawing reasonable conclusions, but they are based upon false information. When you realize what the truth is, I think you might draw the correct conclusion. You just have to be willing to accept that things you think you know are wrong. It is painfully obvious you are heavily influenced by a great deal of propaganda. If you refuse to accept that fact, I can help you no more. If you refuse to believe the obvious and real evidence put before you, then you are as helpless as those who support intelligent design.