Questions about Iraq War discussions....

[CardInAustin]

I find that many of my discussions with Reps about the Iraq War tend to go round and round over the same issues every time. We are in a stalemate that is hard to push through. So, I was wondering how some of you dealt with these issues (and calling him an idiot is not fair in my world):

1) Dems voted for war too
2) Numerous quotes from Dems before war about WMD's and our need to deal with Saddam (Gore, Clinton, and particularly Kerry and Edwards)
3) The entire world all believed the same thing.
4) Had been dealing with Saddam for 12 years

Now, I don't really have much trouble dealing with most of them, but I can't really seem to land the knockout blow on Iraq with some of the more informed Rep's.

[underpants]

1. On the WMD quotes

http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp

other than that. Just tell them that they were all wrong and that you should never send Americans off to die for no reason.

[Norquist Nemesis]

2. On the Dems voted too

Actually, there were 23 No votes. 21 were Democrats, 1 was Chafee (R), and the other was Jeffords (I). So, not every Democrat voted in favor. Republicans on the other hand, were simply in lockstep to avoid armtwisting pain from the leadership and the WH.

The WMD thing is addressed in previous post

As to "the entire world all believed", ask them. "Then if they all believed why didn't countries like France and Germany join in on the expedition?"


"Had been dealing with Saddam for 12 years" Yes, we had been dealing EFFECTIVELY with him for 12 years and had him CONTAINED.

Oh, and the suicide bomber thing always bugs me, too. I'm not an expert on suicide bombers but from what I've read...first of all, it's rare that their families are aware of their intentions to be suicide bombers. Second, when Saddam gave money it was to the family...not the dead bomber...and as I said, they weren't aware. Finally, I doubt that a monetary award from Saddam Hussein to the family was a guiding incentive for a suicide bomber.

[whatever4]

3. I'd say

1) Dems voted for war too
So what? I agree, throw 'em all out, but it doesn't seem to be an option.

2) Numerous quotes from Dems before war about WMD's and our need to deal with Saddam (Gore, Clinton, and particularly Kerry and Edwards)
And we WERE dealing with them. Right up until Bush kicked the weapons inspectors OUT of Iraq to invade, after Saddam had already complied with their being allowed to do so. And remember that little "fixing intelligence" rumor? Were they "dealing" or "fixing" in this war with Iraq? I've read they were actually disappointed Saddam let the weapons inspectors in, and that if he had not, that would have been the pretext to invade. So, no matter what, they wanted to invade. It seems to have been independant of anything Saddam did, or wanted to do. Saddam was, in effect, already acting like our bitch. WE didn't have to do anything but threaten, it was already working, we WERE dealing.

3) The entire world all believed the same thing.
The weapons inspectors didn't. Mr Wilson didn't. But even so...so what? What we believed, for those who believed everything on the news, in some cases put there BY the WH...was based on false evidence, falsified by the WH and given as proof by the WH, the republican-run White House. Who believed? They believed they had to lie to get their war, and I'd really like to know why they lied so much. We believed they weren't capable of such lies. That's what was believed.

4) Had been dealing with Saddam for 12 years
"Dealing" with? Dealing with in what way that necessitated going to war? Precisely what changed in those 12 years, except our president, that mandated a war situation?

[welshTerrier2]

4. try this: the Dems who voted for the war are just as responsible

are you opposing the war or defending Democrats who didn't ??

many of us wrote extensively on the "power vacuum" that would be created in Iraq if Saddam were toppled ... we argued that regional instability, largely threats from Iran, would require a very, very longterm US commitment ...

while we did not foresee the formation of a robust insurgency, we did understand that instability in Iraq would make us less safe, not more safe ...

and the "whole world" did not "believe the same thing" ... what do you think all that crap about "old Europe" and "freedom fries" was all about?

and there were numerous reports, some from the weapons inspectors themselves, that there were no WMD in Iraq ...

and even if Saddam had WMD, was anyone really stupid enough to believe he wasn't totally under the US thumb? 12 years of sanctions, heavy satellite spying and CIA infiltration, and no-fly zones ... during the Powell UN hearings, they showed satellite videos monitoring conversations among Saddam's Generals ... we knew every damned thing Saddam was doing and saying ... he had no ability whatsoever to attack the US even if he had possessed WMD ...

tell your republican friends that they can believe whatever they want to believe ... this is not about politics ... the war in Iraq is killing this country ... it's destroyed our prestige; it's cost over $300 billion; 2000 dead Americans and more than 15,000 severely injured; tens of thousands of dead Iraqis; an unstable region with soaring oil prices due largely to the instability; the risk of another anti-American fundamentalist government coming into power; scandal and lies to sell the war; inability to respond to legitimate domestic crises ...

tell your friend to stop worrying so much about defending republicans and attacking Democrats and start thinking about how to stop the madness in Iraq ... our country will not survive in this world if we continue with such foolish escapades ...

[CardInAustin]

5. Some of both....

I think the Democrats made some serious mistakes in how they handled the situation. However, I still see the admin as the leaders of the march to war.

These Rep's love to point out that the Dems "backed" the war and voted for it. Whenever you question it they bring out the gaggle of quotes from Dems saying that Saddam is a threat, etc.

I guess I just get very frustrated that I am forced to argue details (just b/c you authorize the President to use force does NOT mean that you have given tacit approval for any and all actions made with that authorization) while they get to just argue in idiotic sound bites.

[welshTerrier2]

8. "tacit approval for any and all actions made with that authorization"

yeah, it does ...

the IWR basically said that bush could bomb the fuck out of Iraq and do whatever the hell he wanted to do "at his sole discretion"

Democrats who voted for this screwed up big time ... they've as much as said so ... stop defending their conduct and focus on ending the war ...

[Cults4Bush]

7. Good points but you are wrong about the insurgency...

It was one of my talking points. There was no way that that small of a force was going to be able to immediately step into policing operations. I also noticed that the rhetoric about Bathists was insanely overblown which is how I guessed they'd completely disband the military and all police forces. Which is one of the most ignorant things Ive ever seen. There is also the culture to consider in the face of its invader, hell yes they were going to fight us.

Mulitple reasons I believe led many of us to realize the possibility of a long running popular insurgency was good to great. As soon as the flypaper theory started making the rounds I knew it was a very serious threat.

I am sure there were others.

Other than that you are extremely on point, IMHO anyways.

[welshTerrier2]

9. i was not aware of such talk before the IWR

i wrote numerous times about the instability that would result from toppling Saddam ... the phrase "power vacuum" was everywhere ...

but those i spoke to were concerned about threats from Iran ... we reasoned that the animosity and history between Iraq and Iran would leave Iraq unable to defend itself ... we saw the opposite risk to the arguments bush was making about Saddam being a threat to his neighbors ... we saw a region that would be stabilized, not stabilized ...

and we saw that if the US did this, we would be stuck there indefinitely defending the Iraqis ...

i was not aware there was a substantial presence to the views you held ... i didn't see that an internal instability would be serious or prolonged ... and I didn't understand that bush would dismantle the Iraqi military and police forces ... how crazy was that ???

maybe not so crazy if the real goal was to promote instability, eh ??

[madokie]

6. The Dem's were between a rock and a hard place

Just think how the Dem's would have looked if WMD were found and they had opposed this war as a whole.

[welshTerrier2]

10. when in doubt, just go to war ...

just think how Dems would look now if they hadn't supported bush's efforts ...

in any vote, there is always the risk of being right or being wrong ... choosing based on "how they might look" is probably not the best criteria ... maybe doing the right thing for the country would be a radical idea worth trying ...

[madokie]

11. No doubt about it.

You're right. Utopia would be if every decision was made based on whats good for the country and the people who live here.

on edit: My bad