I hate being on the unpopular side of a debate, especially when there are many intelligent people on the wrong side. This stage of history just makes me so mad. I'm off reading old stories and links online right now and it's funny to see just how revisionistic we've become. "Bush LIED!" Well, actually, an Iraqi scientist lied, in hopes of goading the US into invading so as to kick out Hussein. "Rumsfield FAKED audio intercepts!" Well, actually, the Iraqi ISS planted those radio transmissions smack dab in the middle of the known radio frequency, ensuring US eavesdroppers would intercept it.
The biggest mistake that was made was the utter lack of skepticism by the Bush/Blair governments. They were looking for evidence that would support their thesis, instead of looking at the evidence without bias. To insinuate anything more sinister than that takes you right into citizenship of Kooksville.
The US has a fascination with violence and revenge.
Right, and Muslims (and particularly Arabs) don't?
I'm American and I have a particular fascination with justice. Violence is only one means to that end, but rarely is it the preferred method. This probably explains why we have so many people in prisons, because it's a fascination that many of my law-abiding co-citizens share and many of my not-law-abiding co-citizens don't share.
What most people fail to understand is most of that money would have been spent on the military regardless. Might as well put them to use and get our money's worth, as some of my less tactful friends would say.
Ahh, the whole "USA started this war" argument. Yep, the World Trade Centers were the definite Command Center of this war, so they had to be taken out.
You do remember that we CREATED him? We (the US) put him in power
Uh, your history is not correct. Hussein spent the better part of the 60s working on overthrowing the government and finally succeeded in 1968. There was no US influence at all. The US had NO role in putting Hussein in power.
provided the weapons he used to fight against Iran, against his own people and eventually against us
NO, no and no. The Iraqi Army was fully equipped with Soviet era order-of-battle equipment. They used T-62/72/80 tanks (Russian), BTRs (Russian), BMPs (Russian), and all of their fixed and rotary wing aircraft were Russian, as well as their artillery, machine guns and small arms (AK-47s, also Russian). Germany and France did provide arms to Iran, and it's no secret that the CIA funneled stuff to the enemy of our enemy, but saying that any of that was left to use against us in 1990 is just stupid.
I'm not a liberal. I'm actually a military intelligence professional. For you to claim that "there aren't any innocent civilians in those areas" just highlights your ignorance. All civilians are innocent, full stop, period.
People who dismiss Iraqi - AlQaida connections pre-Iraq invasion are ignorant of the facts. While it is true that US forces in Iraq brought thousands of jihadi's there to fight them, Zirqawi and his wing of Unity and Jihad (later renamed to AlQaida in Iraq) were already there, with sworn allegiances to bin Laden. It is also true that the US and the Bush cabinet overstated the role of Towheed walJihad, but it was also politically expedient to point to yet ONE more reason to invade Iraq...I gently remind everyone that there was a long list of reasons, with "to defeat bin Laden and AlQaida" not being near the top, rather, because "we gave Hussein a deadline to let inspectors in and he didn't abide", being at the top (along with some other stuff that turned out to be not so true, but I digress).
What really pisses me off is people who claim he only came there because we were there. He actually went to Iraq to fight against other Muslims first, and then stayed with the pending invasion set in motion by UN proclamations. By all accounts, Zirqawi was in, or had been in Iraq before the US invasion of Iraq. He didn't come later because we invaded, but it was a good reason for him to stay.
And what pisses me off even more than that is you people stick to whatever side you believe (liberals say it was a detour, conservatives think Hussein bombed the twin towers), but the REALITY is somewhere in the middle. That is it was a very muddled and confusing network of loosely related bad guys that all had each others' backs (as long as it benefited themselves) until bombs started dropping. The real jihadi's stuck it out (Zirqawi, bin Laden, and they got theirs), while the fake Muslims (the Husseins) used their citizens and government to ruin their country.
I'm not sure what your agenda is, but I read the last sentence again and all I can say is why didn't we do that earlier? Seriously, you people need to read/watch Kite Runner and see that military intervention has been necessary in that shit hole long before they started harboring AlQaida and Bin Laden.
So if two wars are indeed driving up the cost of gasoline like TFS and TFA posit, then I guess I've been right all these years when I tell my friends and family (who are not in the military intelligence field like I am) that no, we didn't invade Iraq for the oil...either time. If we had, we'd have a direct pipeline to US tankers and gas would be $1.50 per gallon.
This is exactly correct. I lived in Germany and the UK and I'm considered somewhat of a right-of-center type there. Back home in the US (and in Texas), I'm some sort of fruity LIBruhl socialist commie because I've seen things that work better in Europe than the unfiltered "free market" we have here in the US.
But maybe MSNBC wants conservatives to look stupid and racist,
They do a good enough job on their own, and have been doing so long before MSNBC.
Uh, you do realize that even if MSNBC spent more time covering birthers, that doesn't make birthers "facts" any more correct, right? They are still looney fringe kooks who have difficulty accepting facts, which only reinforces MSNBC's supposed zeal to make them look dumb/racist.
It's not like MSNBC made anything up--they just turned the mics on. Besides, why would Fox news cover a story that makes their viewership look like total asshats more than the competition would want to cover it?
When two people are given the same conditions, but come to different conclusions, chances are one of them is just flat out wrong because, well, they are stupid. I know this doesn't contribute anything to the discussion other than my binary view of people has proven true for over 40 years now;-)
I'm also not convinced that the "nutters" are any further out there than reasonable folks on both left and right.
Oh really? I have reasonable friends on both sides. None of them thinks that Obama is a Muslim or that he was not born in the United States. So the "nutters" ARE exactly that...nutters.
Yeah, I'm trying to draw comparisons on the left to the right's Limbaugh/Beck et. al. and all I can come up with is Jon Stewart and Steven Colbert. Gee, I wonder where I prefer to get my political commentary as it more closely relates to reality? (Hint: Comedy Central).
I keep hearing there is a left bias in the US media, but nobody can actually cite that as being factually correct.
More likely is people like to say NPR and other neutral news sources are "Left" because they say things that the right wing doesn't agree with, because it might actually be steeped in science and/or fact.
You are thinking only of people who lived in one place for their entire life.
I wish people who still live in the same town they grew up in could understand how deeply profound your comment is. I grew up in a good place (Eugene, OR), but joined the military, saw the world, and have settled for the past few years in Austin, TX. Most my friends I had while growing up who are successful now have one thing in common--none of us lives in Eugene, OR anymore. Contrast that with most of my not-so-successful friends still live there. Not that it's a bad place, just that not broadening your worldview is detrimental to your ability to succeed. I'd guess that most of the successful people in Eugene, OR, didn't grow up in Eugene, OR because of this logic.
I have my own algorithm for filtering out overly conservative friends on facebook. If they have more than one incorrect usage of their/there, to/too, it's/its, your/you're, they get classified as conservative and their posts are hidden from view.
Buzz words like Jesus, Rush, Glenn also trigger the filter.
Slashdot Mirror
I hate being on the unpopular side of a debate, especially when there are many intelligent people on the wrong side. This stage of history just makes me so mad. I'm off reading old stories and links online right now and it's funny to see just how revisionistic we've become. "Bush LIED!" Well, actually, an Iraqi scientist lied, in hopes of goading the US into invading so as to kick out Hussein. "Rumsfield FAKED audio intercepts!" Well, actually, the Iraqi ISS planted those radio transmissions smack dab in the middle of the known radio frequency, ensuring US eavesdroppers would intercept it.
The biggest mistake that was made was the utter lack of skepticism by the Bush/Blair governments. They were looking for evidence that would support their thesis, instead of looking at the evidence without bias. To insinuate anything more sinister than that takes you right into citizenship of Kooksville.
You have a better chance being raped by ET than dying in a terrorist attack on a plane.
As long as he does that finger light thing while he's probing me, I'm ok with it.
The US has a fascination with violence and revenge.
Right, and Muslims (and particularly Arabs) don't?
I'm American and I have a particular fascination with justice. Violence is only one means to that end, but rarely is it the preferred method. This probably explains why we have so many people in prisons, because it's a fascination that many of my law-abiding co-citizens share and many of my not-law-abiding co-citizens don't share.
What most people fail to understand is most of that money would have been spent on the military regardless. Might as well put them to use and get our money's worth, as some of my less tactful friends would say.
...bin Laden was a myth, and so is al-Qaeda. Yes, they existed, but not as the uber-powerful bogeymen they've been made out to be.
What other ass-backward 19th century cretin has had any success killing large quantities of Americans?
Ahh, the whole "USA started this war" argument. Yep, the World Trade Centers were the definite Command Center of this war, so they had to be taken out.
You do remember that we CREATED him? We (the US) put him in power
Uh, your history is not correct. Hussein spent the better part of the 60s working on overthrowing the government and finally succeeded in 1968. There was no US influence at all. The US had NO role in putting Hussein in power.
provided the weapons he used to fight against Iran, against his own people and eventually against us
NO, no and no. The Iraqi Army was fully equipped with Soviet era order-of-battle equipment. They used T-62/72/80 tanks (Russian), BTRs (Russian), BMPs (Russian), and all of their fixed and rotary wing aircraft were Russian, as well as their artillery, machine guns and small arms (AK-47s, also Russian). Germany and France did provide arms to Iran, and it's no secret that the CIA funneled stuff to the enemy of our enemy, but saying that any of that was left to use against us in 1990 is just stupid.
God I hate slashdot some days.
I'm not a liberal. I'm actually a military intelligence professional. For you to claim that "there aren't any innocent civilians in those areas" just highlights your ignorance. All civilians are innocent, full stop, period.
People who dismiss Iraqi - AlQaida connections pre-Iraq invasion are ignorant of the facts. While it is true that US forces in Iraq brought thousands of jihadi's there to fight them, Zirqawi and his wing of Unity and Jihad (later renamed to AlQaida in Iraq) were already there, with sworn allegiances to bin Laden. It is also true that the US and the Bush cabinet overstated the role of Towheed walJihad, but it was also politically expedient to point to yet ONE more reason to invade Iraq...I gently remind everyone that there was a long list of reasons, with "to defeat bin Laden and AlQaida" not being near the top, rather, because "we gave Hussein a deadline to let inspectors in and he didn't abide", being at the top (along with some other stuff that turned out to be not so true, but I digress).
What really pisses me off is people who claim he only came there because we were there. He actually went to Iraq to fight against other Muslims first, and then stayed with the pending invasion set in motion by UN proclamations. By all accounts, Zirqawi was in, or had been in Iraq before the US invasion of Iraq. He didn't come later because we invaded, but it was a good reason for him to stay.
And what pisses me off even more than that is you people stick to whatever side you believe (liberals say it was a detour, conservatives think Hussein bombed the twin towers), but the REALITY is somewhere in the middle. That is it was a very muddled and confusing network of loosely related bad guys that all had each others' backs (as long as it benefited themselves) until bombs started dropping. The real jihadi's stuck it out (Zirqawi, bin Laden, and they got theirs), while the fake Muslims (the Husseins) used their citizens and government to ruin their country.
It's great the way our problems with Al Qaeda, Taliban, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc. can all be lumped on Bin Laden.
Or muslims....just sayin'
I'm not sure what your agenda is, but I read the last sentence again and all I can say is why didn't we do that earlier? Seriously, you people need to read/watch Kite Runner and see that military intervention has been necessary in that shit hole long before they started harboring AlQaida and Bin Laden.
So if two wars are indeed driving up the cost of gasoline like TFS and TFA posit, then I guess I've been right all these years when I tell my friends and family (who are not in the military intelligence field like I am) that no, we didn't invade Iraq for the oil...either time. If we had, we'd have a direct pipeline to US tankers and gas would be $1.50 per gallon.
Of course I made no such claim that my statement was without bias, so your rebuttal falls way short.
This is exactly correct. I lived in Germany and the UK and I'm considered somewhat of a right-of-center type there. Back home in the US (and in Texas), I'm some sort of fruity LIBruhl socialist commie because I've seen things that work better in Europe than the unfiltered "free market" we have here in the US.
But maybe MSNBC wants conservatives to look stupid and racist,
They do a good enough job on their own, and have been doing so long before MSNBC.
Uh, you do realize that even if MSNBC spent more time covering birthers, that doesn't make birthers "facts" any more correct, right? They are still looney fringe kooks who have difficulty accepting facts, which only reinforces MSNBC's supposed zeal to make them look dumb/racist.
It's not like MSNBC made anything up--they just turned the mics on. Besides, why would Fox news cover a story that makes their viewership look like total asshats more than the competition would want to cover it?
I'd put an asterisk by #1 that says, ***Don't go too crazy. Yours Truly, 14th Amendment***
Since when is commonly accepted knowledge considered bias?
When two people are given the same conditions, but come to different conclusions, chances are one of them is just flat out wrong because, well, they are stupid. I know this doesn't contribute anything to the discussion other than my binary view of people has proven true for over 40 years now ;-)
I'm also not convinced that the "nutters" are any further out there than reasonable folks on both left and right.
Oh really? I have reasonable friends on both sides. None of them thinks that Obama is a Muslim or that he was not born in the United States. So the "nutters" ARE exactly that...nutters.
Where is the Left media's "talking point generator" like the one it is you listen to that generates "George Soros" every time this topic comes up?
Yeah, I'm trying to draw comparisons on the left to the right's Limbaugh/Beck et. al. and all I can come up with is Jon Stewart and Steven Colbert. Gee, I wonder where I prefer to get my political commentary as it more closely relates to reality? (Hint: Comedy Central).
I keep hearing there is a left bias in the US media, but nobody can actually cite that as being factually correct.
More likely is people like to say NPR and other neutral news sources are "Left" because they say things that the right wing doesn't agree with, because it might actually be steeped in science and/or fact.
You are thinking only of people who lived in one place for their entire life.
I wish people who still live in the same town they grew up in could understand how deeply profound your comment is. I grew up in a good place (Eugene, OR), but joined the military, saw the world, and have settled for the past few years in Austin, TX. Most my friends I had while growing up who are successful now have one thing in common--none of us lives in Eugene, OR anymore. Contrast that with most of my not-so-successful friends still live there. Not that it's a bad place, just that not broadening your worldview is detrimental to your ability to succeed. I'd guess that most of the successful people in Eugene, OR, didn't grow up in Eugene, OR because of this logic.
Huffpo is the worst you could cite on the left? How about DailyKos?
I have my own algorithm for filtering out overly conservative friends on facebook. If they have more than one incorrect usage of their/there, to/too, it's/its, your/you're, they get classified as conservative and their posts are hidden from view.
Buzz words like Jesus, Rush, Glenn also trigger the filter.