I would like to hear from those of you who were in favor of the war... - Page 3

[christymama]

I shouldnt of said that Because I care to. But these boards can get a little heated and my brain doesnt seem to work under pressure: But i do care I may not have gotten that point across in past posts but i really do. There is just so many things that everyone would do different. This is not a perfect world. I really wish it was but I dont ever think it will be. I respect your thoughts and I would hope you did mine as well Even if they arent what you beleive to be true. Thats fine. I still support us going to war. But i also support your right to protest it if you may. IM sorry if i have offended you.

[Marg of Arabia]

A hell of a lot of folks in the world believe that America is being ruled by a "Baddie" who is responsible for many deaths. Who should decide which "Baddies" should be taken out???

[frogertgrl]

Originally posted by Delta
1 - We are not going to 'invade' Iran. Please.

I'm still holding on to what you assured us, Delta.

A top U.S. official said Friday Washington reserved the right to use military action to stop Iran making nuclear weapons, but Tehran accused the United States of waging a baseless propaganda war.

The United States has demanded that Iran, sandwiched between Iraq and Afghanistan where U.S. forces now have a strong foothold, must abide by a nuclear nonproliferation treaty and sign a new protocol that would allow snap inspections.

American leaders' remarks show you have baseless thoughts and dreams about Iran. ... Don't think Iran is Afghanistan or Iraq that you can enter by force," said Ayatollah Mohammad Yazdi, a member of the Guardian Council constitutional watchdog.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...l_nm/iran_dc_8

Great point, Marg.

[Hilary Briss]

War with Iran is a done deal. I said this months ago about Iraq, and I'll say it again now: Don't worry, you'll get your f*cking war.

[El Casey S]

Originally posted by christymama
WOW i feel as if I say the wrong thing that All hell will break lose. Yes i think it was right for us to go there . WMD or not as well! To answer your smart A** questions thats more then likely because we profit with it as well. But ya know what who really cares. The fact is this is not a perfect world and it never will be. :

Originally posted by Mamato6
Actually, what I'm saying is that the world community should take out 'baddies', esp. ones where there is no possibility of them being removed by democratic process. The OP asked to hear from people that were in favor of the war and what they felt now. I say, we live in an imperfect world where the world community doesn't take care of these issues. I am not upset that the US stepped in, WMD or not. That is all.

It is just that since the OP, a few other questions were asked (which I repeated and pointed out) and I have the feeling that those who support the war cannot seem to answer them directly. Neither of you have yet to really answer the question - you say you think it important for baddies to be taken out - but you do not say that you think it is OK to attack countries that have baddies as leaders, before they do anything to other countries - that is what "preemptive strike" means, which is what the US did to Iraq. I don't think they were smart a** questions, I think they were legitimate questions. But it has been my impression that conservatives have a tendency to avoid or belittle the questions they aren't prepared to answer, or stop the dialogue altogether. Are you aware of the consequences of setting an example of preemptive attacks? If so, do you think that it is still OK that we did it? And as for an imperfect world - that fact makes it OK for Bush to do illadviced things - then it should be OK for other countries as well - it is an equally imperfect world - not just an easy out for the US.

[Marlena]

I thought the OP had to do with whether folks who were in support of the war were at all angry, dismayed, perplexed, or otherwise troubled by the information coming out now that intelligence was selectively evaluated in the push towards war, such that intelligence tending to support the possible existence of WMDs was taken into consideration, and intelligence tending to militate against the existence of WMDs was deliberately disregarded.

As I posted a while ago, I do not find it logically impossible for one to be upset about the possibility that the government lied to the country and the world re its reasons for going to war against Iraq, yet still believe that the war was justified (though perhaps on other grounds).

[1jooj]

I have to say, as a person who had no hand in electing/appointing/whatever our current USA govt leader (Hilary, I like your usage here for some reason), as much ICK as that guy puts in my spirit and as many evil evil evil things I see his hands working on and his mouth promoting, I would still NOT feel liberated if some foreign government decided to step in and oust him...and what if they came and found OUR WMDs?

christymama, I think you said that people in Iraq are roaming free with a look of relief. You really think so? Because, I see a lot of tension and worry on the faces I see in the news. And that's in the faces of the Iraqis and soldiers alike.

Lately, too, it seems as though the USA is losing young men and women there are the rate of at least 1 per day. That's what we've been fed up to this point, anyway--so many journalists have gone home. ANyway, at the end of a year or so, that in my mind pretty much adds up to a mass grave.

I don't like what we're doing, how we do it, what other people in the world think we mean by it, or the number of young lives we are willing to risk for it. If the world needs to take out every baddie, then the world should work toward consensus to do that. Not one country moving unilaterally, regardless of international law.

[Marg of Arabia]

As I posted a while ago, I do not find it logically impossible for one to be upset about the possibility that the government lied to the country and the world re its reasons for going to war against Iraq, yet still believe that the war was justified (though perhaps on other grounds).

[El Casey S]

Originally posted by Marlena
I thought the OP had to do with whether folks who were in support of the war were at all angry, dismayed, perplexed, or otherwise troubled by the information coming out now that intelligence was selectively evaluated in the push towards war, such that intelligence tending to support the possible existence of WMDs was taken into consideration, and intelligence tending to militate against the existence of WMDs was deliberately disregarded.

As I posted a while ago, I do not find it logically impossible for one to be upset about the possibility that the government lied to the country and the world re its reasons for going to war against Iraq, yet still believe that the war was justified (though perhaps on other grounds).

I'm sorry, I was under the impression that one could ask other related questions to the OP and expect they would be answered. Why does it seem so difficult for those who support the war to just say - admit - that they believe a pre-emptive attack is OK? One can assume that when they say they are still supportive of it that they ARE saying they believe pre-emptive strikes are OK - but they don't come out and say so, so I assume they are having some cognitive dissonance about the whole thing and having trouble resolving the issue, which means they aren't really thinking as clearly as they would like. I will continue to assume that is what is happening until told otherwise.

[Marg of Arabia]

Let's see, what all is there for them there Iraqi's to be mad about??

Cluster bombs that will be killing future generations??
http://www.msnbc.com/news/897522.asp


Lawlessness? Ethnic fighting??
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/3008424.stm


A generation of children who have had their families ripped apart..
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/2995568.stm

War is still going on unofficially.....
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/2987264.stm

O.K. I could go on and on but, I am getting too busy here at work!!

[Marlena]

Sure, ECS. FWIW, I agree - it would be wonderful if the folks who supported the war would (publicly) think through the sorts of issues you raised more thoroughly. The only problem is that, the way the thread was starting to go, it was starting to look more like an invitation to a bloodbath than a request to discuss (with as much respect as all sides could muster) some relatively circumscribed issues. Thus, my post.

[Marlena]

Uh oh...

Try "I find it logically possible that...."

[Marlena]

Hey!

Are you accusing me of not being 100% crystal clear at all times, or perhaps of not always using the best grammatical form, or maybe of writing sentences that go on and on and on and on, or even of, occasionally, writing a sentence that goes on and on and on and on AND also neglects to employ a verb somewhere within it?

I am shocked! Shocked and hurt! Oh, the ignomity.

[1jooj]

At least one more US soldier dead today.

Anyone got a current body count?

[Marlena]

Did y'all see this one today? If not, you should:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...l?nav=hptop_tb

In one of the more notable statements made by the president, Bush said that "Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists," and added: "Alliance with terrorists could allow the Iraqi regime to attack America without leaving any fingerprints."

Bush did not indicate that the consensus of U.S. intelligence analysts was that Hussein would launch a terrorist attack against the United States only if he thought he could not stop the United States from invading Iraq. The intelligence report had said that the Iraqi president might decide to give chemical or biological agents to terrorists, such as al Qaeda, for use against the United States only as a "last chance to exact vengeance by taking a large number of victims with him." And it said this would be an "extreme step" by Hussein.

These conclusions in the report were contained in a letter CIA Director George J. Tenet sent to Sen. Bob Graham (D-Fla.), then the chairman of the Senate intelligence panel, the day of Bush's speech.

[3boys4us]

Here's another one:

Here is a transcript of the exchange:


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CLARK: "There was a concerted effort during the fall of 2001, starting immediately after 9/11, to pin 9/11 and the terrorism problem on Saddam Hussein."

RUSSERT: "By who? Who did that?"

CLARK: "Well, it came from the White House, it came from people around the White House. It came from all over. I got a call on 9/11. I was on CNN, and I got a call at my home saying, 'You got to say this is connected. This is state-sponsored terrorism. This has to be connected to Saddam Hussein.' I said, 'But--I'm willing to say it, but what's your evidence?' And I never got any evidence."

http://www.fair.org/press-releases/clark-iraq.html

From FAIR.org partial transcript form Tim Russert and Wesley Clark.

[3boys4us]

Oh actually I see that trabot already posted a thread about this. sorry!