Germans gone Wild!

[Tripledoc]

Originally posted by Ned
As to the point about the people being against the war, it seems that this attitude was greatly influenced by European media who virtually campaigned against the war claiming that it was all about America's Imperialism and not about its security. Not so?

This is definately not so where I am from. The 3 largest newspapers all supported the war. There are only three large newspapers. The news broadcasting stations supported the war. there were political intervetion to remove critical journalists. Anti-muslim hatred were dissimated through various channels. The government supported the war, and sent troops.

The media here is open to BBC, CNN and FOX, has one of the worlds highest internet connctions per capita.

An yet barely 50 percent were ever for it! And that survey were taken at the moment of immediate action. No survey has been taken since.

I only wish you would understand that people are tired of war. They see people suffering in the third world. They see refugees coming to their countries fleeing from war after war. They see a rising tide of frustration. And they see a USA which is not how it used to be.

This is beacuse, thank goodness, people are still capable of drawing their own conclusions.

[Ned]

Originally posted by GePap


Actually, it wasn;t our security. Since no one has yet shown a single piece of evidence of how the Saddam regime was a threat to anyone outside of Iraq.

GePap, we have a real question before us as Americans on how good our own intelligence is and whether we can rely on it.

However, I am certain, that even the leading Democrats would agree that if our intelligence says one thing and an ally's intelligence says another, that our government has a right to rely on our intelligence and not have our security be dictated by the intelligence of our ally, however good that ally's intelligence has been historically.

[Nubclear]

However, the leading democrat voted for the war because it was popular at the time.
Doesn't say much of him, does it?

And...is Ned admitting the US was WRONG? And the Axis of Weasels was RIGHT?!

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ned


GePap, we have a real question before us as Americans on how good our own intelligence is and whether we can rely on it.

However, I am certain, that even the leading Democrats would agree that if our intelligence says one thing and an ally's intelligence says another, that our government has a right to rely on our intelligence and not have our security be dictated by the intelligence of our ally, however good that ally's intelligence has been historically.

Before the war, on this very forum, I was constantly argueing that even if ALL the intelliegence they had was true, Iraq was not a threat. None of the intelliegence ever showed an imminent threat-that was a total fabrication by the admin. At best, the intelligence was saying the Iraqis had some WMD's left over- but it did not indicate a will to use them vs the US. Russia today had far and away more WMD's we KNOW of than we though Iraq might have-that does not make Russia a threat- it is intent that matters, and no one ever showed intent when it came to Iraq.

So other states had every right to be utterly skeptical about Admin. claims of a threat, even if the amdin. could have made a case for Iraqi non-compliance (which is a different matter)

[Ned]

TripleDoc, I take it that you are not from Germany. Which country calls you citizen?

[Ned]

Originally posted by GePap


Before the war, on this very forum, I was constantly argueing that even if ALL the intelliegence they had was true, Iraq was not a threat. None of the intelliegence ever showed an imminent threat-that was a total fabrication by the admin. At best, the intelligence was saying the Iraqis had some WMD's left over- but it did not indicate a will to use them vs the US. Russia today had far and away more WMD's we KNOW of than we though Iraq might have-that does not make Russia a threat- it is intent that matters, and no one ever showed intent when it came to Iraq.

So other states had every right to be utterly skeptical about Admin. claims of a threat, even if the amdin. could have made a case for Iraqi non-compliance (which is a different matter)

I am not going to dispute this GePap. But Congress overwhelmingly determined that war was the proper course based on the intelligence we had. I submit this as evidence that reasonable minds can come to a differenct conclusion.

[Tripledoc]

Originally posted by Ned
TripleDoc, I take it that you are not from Germany. Which country calls you citizen?

I feel no loyalty to my nation any longer. It has been taken over. Or sold rather.l

[Main_Brain]

Ahh Someone from the Papal States.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ned


I am not going to dispute this GePap. But Congress overwhelmingly determined that war was the proper course based on the intelligence we had. I submit this as evidence that reasonable minds can come to a differenct conclusion.

NO, congress gave Bush a blank check in October to do what he though necessary to do. They did this when Bush kept saying War as the last thing he wanted, so forth, and he also demanded a vote before the elections, to pressure people into voting or pay the consequences. This was one of the great failings of the congress and showed immense weakness on the part of the Legislature when it came for it to stand up for its own oversight powers in this federal system.

[Ned]

GePap, well Lieberman and Kerry differ on what the resolution meant. I think their differences today is based on "politics." If Kerry and you are right, then Bush had no authority to go to war. Not even Kerry has gone this far -- yet.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ned
GePap, well Lieberman and Kerry differ on what the resolution meant. I think their differences today is based on "politics." If Kerry and you are right, then Bush had no authority to go to war. Not even Kerry has gone this far -- yet.

Hello!

I said blank check. In essence, the congress washed it hands of the situation and told Bush "do whatever you want, we will back you". This is a blank check, as congress put no controls on the president.

I am sure plenty of those who voted for it supported the war (like Lieberman), but instutionally, it was a craven act by a weak legislature ignoring its reponsibilities to the people to defend itself from demagogery coming from the WH and its supporters.

[Ned]

GePap, I listened to a great deal of the debate in Congress myself. I am sure that Congress knew they were voting for war and not voting just to wash their hands of the affair, ala, Pontius Pilate.

Kerry has a real problem with his vote if he says that he was not voting for war. He may criticize Bush for not doing enough at the UN, but that is a judgment call that Congress did place in the president's hands as it did not require him to come back to Congress in event of diplomatic failure. That is why it was a vote for war.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ned
GePap, I listened to a great deal of the debate in Congress myself. I am sure that Congress knew they were voting for war and not voting just to wash their hands of the affair, ala, Pontius Pilate.

Well, if they knew, then the president was lying, cause the prez. kept saying he had not made up his mind for war until like, well, February- and this all happened PRIOR to UNSC 1441. In fact, one the rationales given for passing this was to show "solidarity" as the president went to the UN.

[Ned]

GePap, they did not require him to come back.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ned
GePap, they did not require him to come back.

Yes, hence, black check.