[Qingu]

Originally Posted by Epaphras

[FONT=Trebuchet MS]How? Kerry voted for the war that Bush asked Congress to vote on...how did they choose differently?

Because Kerry didn't choose to go to war, he chose to give Bush war powers to use as a last resort (Bush did not use them as a last resort as he promised he would, according to Kerry)

If I told you your neighbor down the street is stockpiling AK-47s and RPGs, and you knew that he's used them before, and you went in and arrested the guy, but didn't find the weapons, does that mean

a) there were no weapons in the first place?

Legally, yes (no evidence)

b) you were wrong to go in there?

Legally, yes (he would be found "not guilty" and compensated)

c) that the neighborhood is now safer without the guy?

Unless a bunch of gangsters with even more weapons moved into his house, which is what is now happening in Iraq.

Same thing with Iraq, IMO.

Indeed. We illegally invaded Iraq and made the area much more dangerous and unstable.

You are advocating vigilante-ism.

[Ridley's Own]

Originally Posted by Epaphras

Why aren't we blaming the intelligence SNAFU on Clinton, where it rightfully belongs?

Perhaps because it isn't Clinton's fault. Intelligence failures this massive don't happen because of a single, 8-year long administration. I would argue that the institutional failure of the Intelligence Community in Iraq has to do with long-standing reliance on technology over and above reliance on humint (human intelligence; James Bond-style spying), which itself goes back to a paradigm shift in the Community caused by the Church Report. If throwing money at the Community is the answer, you might also put the blame on Bush I, who initiated the military cuts (or reforms, which is closer to reality) shortly after the first Gulf War. Moreover, I'm almost certain that overall intel spending actually rose during the Clinton years (I'd have to check, though). Blaming Iraq on Clinton is like blaming the Hindenburg disaster on FDR for not selling the Germans helium.

And like I've said before, I don't think Bush is necessarily to blame or can be blamed for acting on what everyone else thought to be true. What he can be blamed for, however, is not having the humility and testicular fortitude to admit a mistake was made.

How? Kerry voted for the war that Bush asked Congress to vote on...how did they choose differently?

I think Jerry was refering to other western countries who balked at assisting in the invasion.

If I told you your neighbor down the street is stockpiling AK-47s and RPGs, and you knew that he's used them before, and you went in and arrested the guy, but didn't find the weapons,

I'm assuming I'm a member of Law Enforcement... First and foremost, you'd be arrested for perjury, since swearing out a warrant usually requires... I dunno... Swearing under oath.

does that mean a) there were no weapons in the first place?

No, but it would mean the primary reason for the search was unjustified.

b) you were wrong to go in there?

Actually, under normal search-and-seizure laws, you couldn't even get a warrant to search the house under the scenario you present. Perhaps the Iraq war was the international exercise of the Patriot Act?

c) that the neighborhood is now safer without the guy?

We just don't know, do we? We can't put him in jail, because he's not broken any laws. The action of an unjustified search might push him to re-kindle his illegal weapons stockpile, lest an illegal search take place again...

Same thing with Iraq, IMO.

Eerily close.

[xlx_Jason_xlx]

Originally Posted by Qingu

We went to war because Bush's administration led us to believe that Saddam had WMDs and ties to Al Qaida, and (more secretly) because his advisors wanted to start a democratic empire in the middle east. All of those reasons, it turns out, were unjustified.

Theory: UN was funding Saddam through the oil-for-food and Saddam was funding terrorist surrounding him. Don't you find it a bit strange that after Saddam was captured and the money and documents confiscated that terrorism decreased somewhat in Israel....because they couldn't pay anymore men to blow themselves up...now they have gone back to fighting from a distance.

That is just a theory of mine. Believe, don't believe...doesn't make any difference

[Qingu]

Originally Posted by xlx_Jason_xlx

Theory: UN was funding Saddam through the oil-for-food and Saddam was funding terrorist surrounding him. Don't you find it a bit strange that after Saddam was captured and the money and documents confiscated that terrorism decreased somewhat in Israel....because they couldn't pay anymore men to blow themselves up...now they have gone back to fighting from a distance.

Can you cite where you got the idea that Israeli-based terrorism decreased and was correlated to Saddam's capture?

That is just a theory of mine. Believe, don't believe...doesn't make any difference

Technically, it's a hypothesis, since you've provided no evidence.

I also have a hypothesis; it's about Saddam-funded fairies making the WMDs vanish in puffs of smoke (he paid them with the dreams of the Iraqi schoolchildren that he stole through his oppressive regime).

[xlx_Jason_xlx]

Originally Posted by Danny

I also find it humorous that the source you came up with was Fox News; hands-down, the most conservatively biased mainstream media source on television.

Can you present any proof of that statement, "the most conservatively biased mainstream media source on television"? If not, then I ask you to please withdraw that statement.

[xlx_Jason_xlx]

Originally Posted by Qingu

Can you cite where you got the idea that Israeli-based terrorism decreased and was correlated to Saddam's capture?

I think you might have missed the part where I said it was a theory of mine.

[Qingu]

Originally Posted by xlx_Jason_xlx

Can you present any proof of that statement, "the most conservatively biased mainstream media source on television"? If not, then I ask you to please withdraw that statement.

Wow, now you're asking for proof.

Can you think of a more conservative mainstream media station? What are the options ... ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, MSNBC ... nope, FOX looks more conservative than any two of them.

I suppose I could draw up a list of what each and every station affiliate's political leanings are and charts of how many editorials endorse what candidates ... of course, most people don't need a scale to tell that a pig weighs more than a cat.

[Qingu]

Originally Posted by xlx_Jason_xlx

I think you might have missed the part where I said it was a theory of mine.

Your "theory" (hypothesis) was based on your data of a correlation between Saddam being ousted and Israeli terrorism decreasing.

Is that correlation also an hypothesis? In other words, did you just make that up as well, or can you actually cite it?

[JerryLove]

Can you present any proof of that statement, "the most conservatively biased mainstream media source on television"? If not, then I ask you to please withdraw that statement.

I've watched all the mainstream ones.. Fox is the most conservative... and one of the most obviously biased (claimed based on their language not their opinion).

think you might have missed the part where I said it was a theory of mine.

Actuallt, it's an "idea". When you can gather the facts and establish that your idea fits the known facts, then it will be a hypothesis. When you can prove it, it will be theory.

[Ridley's Own]

Originally Posted by xlx_Jason_xlx

Theory: UN was funding Saddam through the oil-for-food and Saddam was funding terrorist surrounding him.

Saddam absconded with the funds; the U.N. didn't "fund" Saddam. That's like saying I fund drug addicts when they steal my car stereo and sell it in a pawn shop. Let's not go overboard.

Don't you find it a bit strange that after Saddam was captured and the money and documents confiscated that terrorism decreased somewhat in Israel....because they couldn't pay anymore men to blow themselves up...now they have gone back to fighting from a distance.

Actually, Saddam was compensating the families of suicide bombers, not the terrorists themselves. Moreover, he didn't start doing that until well after the current intifada began. This gets confus-ed quite a bit, and it makes me irritable and cranky.

That is just a theory of mine. Believe, don't believe...doesn't make any difference

A theory based off of bad information. Sounds like you work for the President.

[xlx_Jason_xlx]

Originally Posted by Qingu

Because every time we've tried it anywhere in the past it has led to an increase in terrorism and generally a worse dictatorship than the one we overthrew.

I agree..if the natives want to keep switching trible leadership every 3 months they should have the right too...more power to them. We should have just taken what we went for and then left...let them act like they have a 'democracy' over there.

[Ridley's Own]

Originally Posted by xlx_Jason_xlx

I agree..if the natives want to keep switching trible leadership every 3 months they should have the right too...more power to them.

Then why couldn't they have a dictatorship under Hussein? Why is one dictator anathema and the other part of the right of a soveriegn nation?

We should have just taken what we went for and then left...let them act like they have a 'democracy' over there.

What, pray tell, do you think we "went for?"

[Qingu]

Originally Posted by xlx_Jason_xlx

I agree..if the natives want to keep switching trible leadership every 3 months they should have the right too...more power to them. We should have just taken what we went for and then left...let them act like they have a 'democracy' over there.

You mean the nonexistant weapons of mass destruction?
Or the fairies that Saddam is funding?

I'm sure starting an illegal war and then letting a country implode afterward will do wonders for making our nation safer against terrorists.

I think this is the most immoral statement I've read on this board. How on earth would you reconcile this with your Bible or your God?

(sorry for using bad terminology, Jerry!)

[+Donny]

......testicular fortitude....

You have to count on Isaac for the colorful language. You just made reading the last two pages of this thread worthwhile.

[xlx_Jason_xlx]

Originally Posted by Ridley's Own

What, pray tell, do you think we "went for?"

Perfect question, I too would like to know the anser to that. I don't know why we are still there, I don't think we should be. I disagree with most of the President's decisions. I also disagree with most of Kerry's decisions..but the one thing that really counts in this election is MONEY! Everyone seems to forget about that. Both candidates are promising things they cannot pay for; however, Kerry is promising something that can be performed, which is: higher taxes to the rich class and lower taxes for the 'middle man'. Sounds great doesn't it, everyone loves low taxes the only problem is...Kerry's idea is the same Idea they had in the 1930. Redistribution of wealth for the benefit of all. Comunism in other words. And, if you look throughout history you will see that all the countries that adopted this 'take from the rich and give to the poor' theory; you will see that it resulted in mass poverty and unemployment because the government seizes control of free enterprise in order to control wages and price. Resulting in a decrease of supply and industries in the country.

This is why I agree with Bush, he has a better economic plan than Kerry. As far as the whole Middle East goes...let it be. We need to concentrate on "home" in this election

I still have not heard from either about the thousands of illegal immigrants pouring over our boarders every day. Let's think about the 2" by 4" in our eyes before we try and police the entire world