3/4 Bush supporters still believe WMD, etc

[Lonskils]

News (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=655&e=11&u=/oneworld/4536965431098444910)

[Lothbah]

lots of people think that elvis is still alive, too

[Varran]

Interesting news story Lons, not likely that most Bush supporters would read it tho. They'll see that it is neg against Bush and his supporters and ignore it.

[Vinilaa]

Bush supporters can read? :eek:

[Tarissa]

I Support The War And I Watch Fox News Also I Want To Have O'reilly's Babies Go Bush Ra Ra

[Eomer]

Tarissa, I hate it break it to you, but Bill can't get you pregnant over the phone :/

[Lothbah]

Tarissa, use your vibrator!

[Vidmer]

That sounds about right most of the electorate is woefully ignorant of what is going on. As this study (http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa525.pdf)by the CATO institute lays out just how uniformed voters are.

Its clearly not a Bush thing, its an American thing. This is why five o'clock shadows and huffing during debates and not their actual policies that make or break candidates .

In particular, part IV, the Rationality of Ignorance, is a must read.

Anyway, continue on with your Bush supporter bashings and pretend that almost as many ignorant people don't also agree with you ;)

[Forty]

Most voters may be uninformed, but I certainly wouldn't rely on the Cato Institute for more insight on that.

[Vidmer]

Interesting that you would challenge the credibility of a study by the CATO institute and not that of One World (http://us.oneworld.net/) whose press release (http://us.oneworld.net/article/view/96543/1/) Yahoo (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=655&e=11&u=/oneworld/4536965431098444910) is passing off as news.

A quick exerpt from One World's values statement (http://us.oneworld.net/article/view/33023).

OneWorld values:

* human rights for all as enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
* sharing the world's natural and economic resources fairly
* simple and sustainable ways of life
* the right of every individual to inform and be informed, with access for all to the benefits of new technology
* participation and transparency in decision-making
* social, cultural and linguistic diversity

No way these guys could possibly be biased right?

[Forty]

[QUOTE=Vidmer]Interesting that you would challenge the credibility of a study by the CATO institute[/URL].

Hmm, I guess this was meant for me? Ok...never said I "challenged" the study, just that I wouldn't rely on it alone. And for the other link you posted, it's the first time I've seen it. Not sure why I would be expected to have seen it. I guess you assume I read the Cato link. /shrug

But ok, I will always challenge an organization that, appears to me, to be at one extreme or the other. Doesn't mean I'm for or against, just that I'd question.

http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=9261

"Cato leads the right-wing's push for privatization of government services. In 2001, the Washington Post, noting Cato’s influence, said it “has spent about $3 million in the past six years to run a virtual war room to promote Social Security privatization."

"Cato supports the wholesale elimination of eight cabinet agencies – Commerce, Education, Energy, Labor, Agriculture, Interior, Transportation and Veterans Affairs – and the privatization of many government services."


If I don’t dazzle you with my brilliance, I’ll leave you numb with my stupidity.

[Vidmer]

And for the other link you posted, it's the first time I've seen it. Not sure why I would be expected to have seen it. I guess you assume I read the Cato link. /shrug

The other links are links to the authors of the initial "news" story. If you click Lon's link you will see the byline: Jim Lobe, OneWorld US. The second link is to the OneWorld press release that led to this "news." The hope was that after seeing who the authors of the "Bush voters are morons" study you might question the source of the data as much as you did the source of the data from the "all voters are morons" study.

And citing People for the American Way (Alec "I'm leaving the U.S. if Bush wins" Baldwin is on the board of directors) to illustrate the bias of another organization is quite bold. But at least CATO is upfront about its bias, and its funding.

[Forty]

And citing People for the American Way (Alec "I'm leaving the U.S. if Bush wins" Baldwin is on the board of directors) to illustrate the bias of another organization is quite bold. But at least CATO is upfront about its bias, and its funding.


How is that bold by simply passing on information? Or any less bold than placing a link to a Cato paper? And how does that make the Cato Institute or PFAW any more or less credible?

And yes, I expect an eight-page essay (double spaced naturally) answering these questions. Due: 10/28/04.

[Saztin]

Of course they have WMD, and we have the receipts to prove it!

[Vinilaa]

Of course they have WMD, and we have the receipts to prove it!

ROFL! :o

[Vidmer]

How is that bold by simply passing on information? Or any less bold than placing a link to a Cato paper?

I was saying that it was bold because you were trying to show that one institution was biased by using data from an even more biased source. Cato is a well established and respected think-tank while PFAW is a Johnny-come-lately attack dog, that works hand in hand with the DNC.


And how does that make the Cato Institute or PFAW any more or less credible?

Good question, since your first post was an attack on the credibility of an organization rather then the contents of the study I am wondering this myself. Perhaps we could return to a discussion of why the electorate, or a cetain candidate's supporters are so uninformed? =p

[Eomer]

Similar studies have been done and they all show the same thing. There was one on who believed certain misconceptions about Iraq, and what network they got their primary news from. Naturally, the highest was Fox, although the other major networks weren't too far behind in all fairness. Those who got their news from PBS, however, didn't do too badly, and people who read newspapers did pretty decent as well. The misconceptions were stuff like believing Iraq had WMD, whether or not they used WMD in the recent war, had ties to Al Qaeda, helped in 9/11, that sort of thing.

[Forty]

I was saying that it was bold because you were trying to show that one institution was biased by using data from an even more biased source.

But that was my point. Just because an article originates from a biased source doesn't make it wrong or incorrect. Which is what I gathered you were trying to say by questioning Lon's link. /shrug


Perhaps we could return to a discussion of why the electorate, or a cetain candidate's supporters are so uninformed? =p

The founding fathers had long decided the average voter was not smart enough to make such an important decision as selecting the president and had left it to the electorate college to basically decide. It was in 1825 that the Ecollege vote became little more then a rubber stamp.


And what the heck is going on with the three turnovers? Vidmer you need to get in there and show 'em how to hold on to the ball. And while you're at it, get them ready to beat UM.

[Aradil]

Umm the electoral college was established so that no one person could buy an election by getting major groups of people together to vote for one person. IE if Hillary Clinton was running for president and there was no electoral college she could go to all the metropolitan areas such as NY city, LA, Chicago, which are a majority democrats and control the election. The smaller more rural areas would have no say in the election such as Montana, Wyoming etc. The electoral college allows smaller more rural areas to actually have some influence and say in who gets elected president. It has nothing to do with the intelligence of voters.

[Varran]

It also allows for situations like the last election in which the man who won the popular vote (more voted for him than for the other guy) actually lost.

Basically speaking, more people wanted Gore to be president, but the electoral college allowed him to lose. Great idea.

Will be interesting to find out which areas will be accused of fraud this time. Whomever loses will pull the usual sour grapes act. Not saying what happened in Florida (then or now) was not illegal, just saying the fight afterwards diminished the presidency and it would never have been allowed to undermine the vote (even if illegal actions were proven).

Will be interesting to see how many ballots also suprise the people who cast them this time. I found it funny last election how many people voted for the wrong guy based on how the ballot was printed.

[Forty]

Umm the electoral college was established so that no one person could buy an election by getting major groups of people together to vote for one person. IE if Hillary Clinton was running for president and there was no electoral college she could go to all the metropolitan areas such as NY city, LA, Chicago, which are a majority democrats and control the election. The smaller more rural areas would have no say in the election such as Montana, Wyoming etc. The electoral college allows smaller more rural areas to actually have some influence and say in who gets elected president. It has nothing to do with the intelligence of voters.

That's a side effect, if and only if a person doesn't carry all 11 states listed below, but not the original intent of the E-college as designed by the founding fathers of this country. Yes, not ALL the founding fathers shared this view, but eventually it was one that won out.

http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761576768/Electoral_College.html

One thing is clear about the political theory underpinning the electoral college: The framers of the Constitution could not agree on one. From the outset, the framers were uncertain about how the president should be chosen. Meeting in the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, in 1787, the framers originally decided to have Congress choose the president, and that there should be no popular vote to elect the president. Then the Constitutional Convention decided that the president should be chosen by electors. Later consideration restored the choice to Congress. Toward the close of the convention, a committee came up with the main outlines of the procedure used to this day, selection by electors.

The framers’ uncertainty was generated by disagreement over the role of the people, the Congress, and the states in the political process. Many delegates to the convention, including Virginia’s James Madison, favored popular election of the president. But others, such as Massachusetts’s Elbridge Gerry, feared the “ignorance of the people.” Virginia’s George Mason thought that to refer the choice of president to the people would be to “refer a trial of colors to a blind man.” These doubts about the people’s ability to choose a president led to misgivings about the competence of the proposed electoral college. Some delegates therefore preferred that Congress select the president. South Carolina’s Charles Pinckney argued that because members of Congress would be “immediately interested in the laws made by themselves,” they would be likely to select a “fit man to carry them properly into execution.” Connecticut’s Roger Sherman also favored letting Congress choose so as to make the president “absolutely dependent on that body.”



In the end, this election will not be decided by votes but by the courts, imho.


And that a way to make a comeback, Vidmer!!

[Forty]

And by the way, someone can become president by winning just 11 of 50 states. That's just 22% of the states. Can you guess which states make up the 11? Yep, the ones with the larger cities and overall population.

And to hammer the point further, this effectively means (in the exaggerated sense, I'm Texan so I get to do that sorta thing) that 11 votes could basically nullify millions. 3,900,011 total votes cast, 3.9 million in 39 states and 11 in 11 states and the 11 win. Make sense? Not to me.

CA - 54
TX - 34
NY - 31
Fla - 27
Ill - 21
PA - 21
OH - 20
MI - 17
GA - 15
NJ - 15
NC - 15
Total 271

[Tarissa]

Umm the electoral college was established so that no one person could buy an election by getting major groups of people together to vote for one person. IE if Hillary Clinton was running for president and there was no electoral college she could go to all the metropolitan areas such as NY city, LA, Chicago, which are a majority democrats and control the election. The smaller more rural areas would have no say in the election such as Montana, Wyoming etc. The electoral college allows smaller more rural areas to actually have some influence and say in who gets elected president. It has nothing to do with the intelligence of voters.

I'm sort of confused as to why you think this. What say do the Republicans have in my home state, NY? Practically none, they won't win NY. And the larger states (that is, states with a higher population) have more electoral votes.

And it absolutely has something to do with the intelligence of voters. Our forefathers built the country with the idea that the human being was corruptable (checks and balances, even the electoral college)

edit: damn it forty, beaten

[Forty]

Interesting....


http://slate.msn.com/id/2108815/

[Thuggo]

Some delegates therefore preferred that Congress select the president. South Carolina’s Charles Pinckney argued that because members of Congress would be “immediately interested in the laws made by themselves,” they would be likely to select a “fit man to carry them properly into execution.” Connecticut’s Roger Sherman also favored letting Congress choose so as to make the president “absolutely dependent on that body.”

God this would have been the worst method possible. This is how the Reichstag made Hitler Chancellor of Germany.

[Vidmer]

The electoral college makes a lot more sense if you think of the federal government as an alliance of 50 sovereign states and not as THE ultimate government of the U.S. Granted a few hundred years of erosion of state's rights and its hard to think that way these days....

The EC could use replacement, but a straight popular vote is not the answer as the linked articles in this thread show.

And that game is exactly why I love college football, and also why I will likely be gray before my time.

[Tarissa]

God this would have been the worst method possible. This is how the Reichstag made Hitler Chancellor of Germany.

DUDE THIS IS HOW PALPATINE CAME TO POWER!

aaa to beat caps filter.

[Kurbi]

I'm sort of confused as to why you think this. What say do the Republicans have in my home state, NY?

How about governor and mayor seats?

[Tarissa]

I don't believe the electoral college gets involved with that :confused:

[BurnemWizfyre]

As to the original topic, i hear that 66% of all percentages are made up on the spot.

[Tarissa]

As to the original topic, i hear that 66% of all percentages are made up on the spot.

Fresh humor!

[Elidroth]

The misconceptions were stuff like believing Iraq had WMD, whether or not they used WMD in the recent war, had ties to Al Qaeda, helped in 9/11, that sort of thing.

Iraq having WMD's is not a misconception. It's a fact demonstrated by Saddam himself when he used them upon his own people. Or do you conveniently forget that little action?

[Varran]

It depends on whether you think his actions of Feb-September 1988 should determine regime change now. He has not used WMD since then and it was a gas attack very similar to ones that America has in its own past released on other nations.

The Kurdish battles included 39 gas attacks on various villages and by modern morals they are reprehensible, but using an attack from 16 years ago as an excuse to wage a war seems to me a little like reaching.

Other nations then, by your and mr Bush's rationale, would have the right to attack the United States and try to enforce a political change because the US has used WMD on people it was at war with (for sure in Vietnam, allegedly in other engagements).

A lot of people bring up the Anfal operations on the Kurds as Saddam gassing his own people. The Kurdish people in that specific region of the country had been fighting with the Iraqis for a number of years to try and gain autonomy, basically looking to have their own country or at the very least portion of the country under their own rule. As has been done by most if not all of the so called civilized countries, the Iraqis fought them to maintain control of their country.

I don't agree with what they did, I think it was disgraceful and disgusting to attack the Kurdish people in the manner they did. It is one thing to engage in battle with men (and or women) on an up front basis, but then again in this modern day and age that is not the way fighting happens.

We jump up and condemn Saddam and his regime for doing the same thing the American leaders have done in the past. The only difference is that he is not like us. We will always excuse what we do in battle as a necessary evil, but if the enemy does the same thing then it is the most vile and hateful thing a military could ever do.

edit: in Vietnam the US used Agent Orange, Agent Purple and the highly poisonous Agent Pink. The difference is that they called them herbicides and not chemical weapons. The end result however was the same, tens of thousands have died as a direct result of the use of these chemicals.

[Varran]

I forgot to add:

The liquid and dry mustard gas, sarin and tabun used to gas the Kurds came from 31 companies. 14 were German, 3 each from the Netherlands and Switzerland, and 2 each from France, Austria, and AMERICA.

If the actions from that time were so reprehensible that we needed to go to war with them 16 years later "just in case they do it again", why aren't the companies (and their directors) which sold the chems held under any liability?

I'd also like to add that some of the chems were purchased during the time when Bush's father was in office.

We can make all the excuses we want for this war, at least have the intel to back them up, or the conviction to keep lying about it. To quote Lewis Black "I need a picture and I don't give a fuck if it's real... have the common sense to send two 15 yr olds down to kinkos, I need the picture of a camel carrying a nuclear weapon on its back"

[Aradil]

The defense of Sadaam Hussein coming from your mouth is pathetic. Even comparing him to the US is reprehensible. Saddam was a man who had rape rooms where women were taken and raped in front of their husbands and families to prove that he was in control. He cut off peoples hands just to prove he was in control. Defend Sadaam to the people in the mass graves they have found all over Iraq. Those mass graves included children less than a year old and numbers are estimated to be around 400,000 so far. People were said to have their teeth ripped out just because they upset Saddam or his son's. Even putting Saddam and the US in the same sentence is disgusting and indefensible. Maybe the US was not right in going to war, they might not have had the correct intelligence, but comparing any actions the US has taken, to Saddam and his regime is deplorable.

[Varran]

Relax.

I am not defending Saddam or what he did. I am not comparing him and the US.

I am refuting the WMD argument brought up by a number of people who use only partial information to make an argument. The WMD argument can be used by a number of countries against a number of other countries, to use it as an argument to go to war with Iraq is weak.

To state that we want to go to war because he is a bad man and for the reason you stated is fine, but that is not what they did and you know it. To distort what I said because you are too lazy to actually read it before making an opinion on the facts presented points exactly to some of the arguments made by other people in posts here.

Like I said earlier Saddam did many deplorable things, but if we are removing people from power because they do evil things to those under their leadership then we are going to be very busy in war. Iran and North Korea are next, then Zaire, the congo, sudan where the genocide is even more rampant than it ever was in Iraq. Rape gangs, children murdered, etc. Why aren't you up in arms screaming at the top of your lungs that we should enter Zaire?

If you would rather not actually do the research on the rest of the world and how they treat their people just ask and I'd be glad to explain to you why the leadership in those countries should also be replaced.

[Aradil]

Ok so maybe I overreacted a bit, but I get tired of people acting like Saddam was this person we had no need to worry about at all.
People keep coming up with the fact that there were no WMD's in Iraq as a reason to say we should not have removed him. The fact is that 95% of the world thought Saddam had WMD's, this 95% includes John Kerry himself, who being a member of the Senate Intelligence committee, had the EXACT same intelligence as the President. Even the UN thought that Saddam had WMD's. Putin thought Iraq had WMD's, Britian thought Iraq had WMD's, heck even Saddam's own scientist thought Iraq had WMDS's, so when we went to war the pretense was there. And as for the defense questioning why we don't go into those other countries such as North Korea, Iran, and Sudan, well the worlds response to situation in Iraq has basically made that an impossibility. Again I apologize for reacting so harshly.

[Varran]

and I apologize as well... I don't want anyone ever thinking that I believe Saddam is anything but an pockmark on the face of man.

My issue with the whole thing is that too many people still using the WMD argument long after it was done. Bush had intel available at the time he called war that suggested there were no WMD in that country but chose to ignore it. That is fine, it's his perogative as President. However he now evades any reference to the suggestion he mad a wrong call. If you had a child that made a decision no matter how small or large would you not chastise them if they chose to obfuscate any error on their part if the decision turned out badly? You would expect them to stand up and take responsibility for their decisions. The President is not doing that.

You know, I really think the American people would still have been behind Bush (and a think a big portion of the world might have been as well), if he had've stated at the beginning "We are not totally positive that Saddam has WMD or the intent to create them, however he is a nasty motherfucker and we need the nasty motherfuckers of the world to know that we won't stand for their shit. We are going in there, we will remove him from power and stop his insanity to show all the other nasty motherfuckers that we mean business and if they don't stop... we're goin to get them too."

Yeah, it woulda really been tough for a bit, but the world would end up a better place I think. How we determine if someone should be removed is difficult, but there are some out there that it is obvious they need to be taken out.

[Eomer]

Iraq having WMD's is not a misconception. It's a fact demonstrated by Saddam himself when he used them upon his own people. Or do you conveniently forget that little action?

He used those upon his people in the mid to late 80's, over 15 years ago. The question was whether or not he had maintained stockpiles up until the invasion in March of 2003. The UN verified the destruction of the majority of his weapons after 1991, as well, although not all. Turns out he didn't have any significant stocks, maybe the occasional forgotten artillery shell.

[Forty]

The fact is that 95% of the world thought Saddam had WMD's, this 95% includes John Kerry himself, who being a member of the Senate Intelligence committee, had the EXACT same intelligence as the President. Even the UN thought that Saddam had WMD's. Putin thought Iraq had WMD's, Britian thought Iraq had WMD's, heck even Saddam's own scientist thought Iraq had WMDS's, so when we went to war the pretense was there.


Your percentages and sources are a tad high....I can promise you 95% of the world including the US intelligence didn;t think that Saddam had ANY wmd after 1991. The UN, Putnim and many United States intelligence agency's didn't think he had wmd nor did he pose a threat to any country outside of the middle east. You are completely wrong. Period.

You know i was going to be nice, but fuck that....how fucking stupid do you have to be to come here and state such fucking garabge after all the has been proven....US weapon inspectors, UN weapon inspectors, the CIA and most of the free world DID NOT THINK IRAQ had weapons of mass destruction after 1991....what in the fuck...They all passed this information to the President and he fucking ignored it. They had the information Bushfucktard wanted them to see.

Jesus H Christ, the UN thought Saddam had wmd???? What in the fuck are you smoking? You been in a god damn coma that last three years? Grats on waking up but fuck....France, Germany and RUSSIA and most of the other countries didn't go into Iraq because they knew Iraq didn't have shit.

Have you not fucking seen or read a damn thing in the last two weeks about this????

[Qaediin]

Point is we should have gone after and taken down Osama Bin Laden. Point blank no bullshitting around. Cornering him and letting him go in Tora Bora cause we let the conscripts*ok Afghan army* move in and only keeping 18k US and coalition troops maintain the peace is so fucking ridiculous to actually merit a response is laughable. Just think....eighteen thousand troops in that large rat hole to maintain the peace? What is Dubya smokin? The weed he is puffin has to be laced. We have more police in fucking New York City for gods sake. Get Bin laden and either capture or kill the mother fucker. How hard is that to understand? Then go fuck with Iraq and keep pressure on Saddam. Get your intel right and go whip ass if necessary.

Bush is a dumb fuck and Kerry aint far behind. This is the worse selections for President that i can remember. I am thinking about writing in Ross Perot.

[Aradil]

Lol, so much for a civilized conversation. Forty, its pretty amazing you think that most of the world didnt think Saddam had wmd's. I think its amazing that since France, Germany, and Russia in your words thought he didn't means the whole world didn't think he had them. You seem to forget Britian, Australia, Italy, Spain, Poland, most eastern bloc nations, and oh yeah the US. As for Russia, I digress I was wrong about them believing there were WMD's. This will be my last response on these boards about this topic, the reason is I can not say anything that will change your mind and you can not say anything to change mine. I will leave you with one last thing though, just an interesting link about who in the US believed there were WMD's in Iraq.

http://www.davidstuff.com/political/wmdquotes.htm

[Forty]

Lol, so much for a civilized conversation. Forty, its pretty amazing you think that most of the world didnt think Saddam had wmd's. I think its amazing that since France, Germany, and Russia in your words thought he didn't means the whole world didn't think he had them. You seem to forget Britian, Australia, Italy, Spain, Poland, most eastern bloc nations, and oh yeah the US. As for Russia, I digress I was wrong about them believing there were WMD's. This will be my last response on these boards about this topic, the reason is I can not say anything that will change your mind and you can not say anything to change mine. I will leave you with one last thing though, just an interesting link about who in the US believed there were WMD's in Iraq.

http://www.davidstuff.com/political/wmdquotes.htm


Shut the fuck up you dumb shit....how many countries are in the UN and how many participated in Iraq? Fucking dumb shit people that have their ass so far up their ass piss me off.

I could careless what politican said what when...what did the intellegence say on the subject? Oh, what's that? No wmd? oh...ok...dumb ass.

And posting a Dem quotes from some bullshit site means what to me? Just because I am against Bush doesn't mean I'm a democrat you fucking piss ant.

[Forty]

I am thinking about writing in Ross Perot.


He did get 18% of the popular vote...just no electoral.

[Tarissa]

Forty, I like the cut o' yer jib sir.

[Buazag Bonesteel]

I am thinking about writing in Ross Perot.

I voted for him back when he was on the ticket. I still think he'd make a pretty good president. Unfortunately he lacks the charisma to get the non-thinkers out there on his side. He pulls out the charts and graphs of how he's going to pull our economy out of the toilet and 70% of America goes to sleep. People worried about him not having the experience to deal with foreign policy as well. Personally I didn't see that as an issue. Hell Bush Sr. yakked all over the Emperor? President? Whoever....important Japanese official. Can't get much more undiplomatic than that heh. The presidency is far from a one man show though. For the areas you maybe lack skill in.....you appoint cabinet members.....advisors....etc. Believe it or not.......if we suddenly didn't have a president, there might be a panic because someone needs to seem to be in charge......but if no one knew that there wasn't a president in action, well the country would still keep chugging along just fine.

[Kurbi]

Shut the fuck up you dumb shit....how many countries are in the UN and how many participated in Iraq? Fucking dumb shit people that have their ass so far up their ass piss me off.

anger management anyone? Seems like anything that doesn't jive with your world view pisses you off...how fun for you!

[Argonah]

I don't think it's accurate to say "Britain" believed Iraq had WMD.

Tony Blair may have believed they did, however a large chunk of his own party oppose his actions, as does most of the nation. I don't think I actually know anyone who thinks invading Iraq was a good idea.

[Elidroth]

France, Germany and RUSSIA and most of the other countries didn't go into Iraq because they knew Iraq didn't have shit.


Actually Forty.. there's pretty solid evidence that France, Germany, and Russia didn't want to do anything about Saddam because they were profiting in the billions of dollars area in doing military/weapons business with Iraq under the bogus "Food for Oil" program. They didn't want to shake up their little cash cow.

[Forty]

anger management anyone? Seems like anything that doesn't jive with your world view pisses you off...how fun for you!

And you'd be wrong, just him. But thanks for joining in the conversation.

Btw, try looking here: http://www.hossguild.org/forums/showthread.php?t=14902 at the bottom.


Actually Forty.. there's pretty solid evidence that France, Germany, and Russia didn't want to do anything about Saddam because they were profiting in the billions of dollars area in doing military/weapons business with Iraq under the bogus "Food for Oil" program. They didn't want to shake up their little cash cow.

Well, you might be right. Have any links to the solid proof that supports that claim? What does that actually prove as to why they didn't join us in Iraq? Did you or did you not see where they repeatedly questioned the assumptions that Iraq had any wmd or even the ability to produce such weapons? Is it possible that your claim could be true but that it's a minor insignificant reason as to why they didn't go in? And yes, I'm sure they were thinking about that in the back of their mind, but does that justify why we went in? Cause right now, regardless of why they did or didn't do something, they are looking pretty smart and we are not.

[Eomer]

Actually, I kind of agree with Elidroth here. Most governments around the world DID believe Iraq still had WMD in some quantity or another. There was disagreement on exactly how much he had of what, and how far along he was on making a nuke, how quickly he could deploy stuff, that kind of thing. Maybe country A figured he had two barrels of anthrax, and country B figured he had two thousand. But pretty much all countries figured he had SOMETHING. And when I say "country", I mean a country's intelligence service's opinion. As to private citizens and what they thought, well I don't really care. Joe blow in Alabama or Paris knows as much about what's in Saddam's closet as what's in mine. All they hear is the crap filtered through the media. Now personally, I figured that Saddam got rid of most of his crap and just kept very small stockpiles of a few things, as well as the capability to make more quickly. Turns out he had virtually nothing (a couple artillery shells here and there, if the Pentagon can piss away tens of billions in cash every year, I am sure the decrepid Iraqi Army can lose an artillery shell or two), and didn't even maintain much for making more.

So in the end, everyone was wrong.

As far as France and Russia not wanting to go to war because of the profits they were making, a) I think that's only a very small part of their reasoning to not go, if it's any part at all and b) why is that any worse than going to war FOR profits and c) American companies were high on the hog in Iraq before the war, doing it with offshore subsidiaries to avoid the sanctions (Halliburton just keeps popping up, don't they?).

[Elidroth]

It's pretty simple really.. Those countries, especially Russia are on the verge of financial collapse every day. You take away the kind of money they were making from Saddam and there is a very real potential to cause financial disarray.

It doesn't make our reasons for going into Iraq any more credible at all. In fact.. I think our reasons given for attacking Iraq were stupid, especially in light of the wide variety of VALID reasons we had such as;

Saddam's troops REPEATEDLY firing upon our aircraft patrolling the no-fly zone.

Saddam's continual defiance of UN resolutions (13 in total since 1991) which stated very clearly that SEVERE consequences would result from non-compliance.

Regardless.. the reasons we were given were poor at best, and as it turns out may have been fabricated or at least enhanced to better support the attacks.

[Lydia]

Those countries, especially Russia are on the verge of financial collapse every day.

Thats pretty funny.



Especially as Russia is making mad money with their oil exports and is aggressively trying to pay off debts before they are due.
Pretty much the only major state not making new debts every year to pay for state expenses.

[Forty]

Regardless.. the reasons we were given were poor at best, and as it turns out may have been fabricated or at least enhanced to better support the attacks.


So what you are saying is that, you support someone that basically lied about going to war???


So what we have is Impeachment procedings for a President that lied about getting a hummer and reelection for a President that lied and resulted in the death of 1000+ US troops and civilians.....

[Tarissa]

FREEDOM ISN'T FREE FORTY OMG AMERICA!!!111a

[Daisiee]

So what we have is Impeachment procedings for a President that lied about getting a hummer
Clinton lied under oath thats why he had the impeachment procedings. Now if GW comes out and says, "Yes I lied about the WMD in Iraq." Then he needs to be impeached.

[Forty]

Clinton lied under oath thats why he had the impeachment procedings. Now if GW comes out and says, "Yes I lied about the WMD in Iraq." Then he needs to be impeached.

Yes, but the fact remains he was being questioned, under oath, for getting a blow job. The people doing the questioning were members of the opposing party of an election year. Clinton never came out and said he lied before the hearings that I recall.

So you really have to have Bush come out and say he lied eventhough the evidence is stacking up against him?

[Daisiee]

Yes, but the fact remains he was being questioned, under oath, for getting a blow job. The people doing the questioning were members of the opposing party of an election year. Clinton never came out and said he lied before the hearings that I recall.

So you really have to have Bush come out and say he lied eventhough the evidence is stacking up against him?For an impeachment either himself or someone of his senior staff would suffice or an impartial nation doing the actual searching for the weapons and coming up with nil.

Here is a link that entails what clinton's impeachment proceedings were about.
http://www.npr.org/news/national/articlesofimpeach.html

[Forty]

Here is a link that entails what clinton's impeachment proceedings were about.
http://www.npr.org/news/national/articlesofimpeach.html

Thanks, I know what the impeachment hearings were about. Maybe I should rephrase the statement.


Clinton did something.
Clinton gets investigated.
Clinton lies and covers up the lies. (Define the word "is"...umm, ok should I bend over now or after you get the 55-gallon barrel of vasoline?)
Impeachment hears.

Bush does something.
The something is proven wrong and evidence suggests he knew it was wrong.
Basically he lies. ("The CIA report was given to me but I didn't read it.")
Investigations may or may not happen.
Impeachment may or may not happen.

My point is; that while Clinton lied to a congressional hearing about getting a blow job, how is that any different (worse) then Bush lying to the American people (and the world) about WMD to engage in a war? But I think you answered that, for the most part, in your previous post. Thanks.

[Eomer]

It's pretty simple really.. Those countries, especially Russia are on the verge of financial collapse every day. You take away the kind of money they were making from Saddam and there is a very real potential to cause financial disarray.

Russia's not doing too badly, their main problem is corruption still. And a resurgent state taking control of things, that too. I don't know if they are paying off debt or not as Lydia says, but I don't think they are on the verge of "collapse" any time soon. The war in Iraq meanwhile is quite literally bleeding the US. I won't say dry yet, depends how long it drags out and how much oil can be pumped out (and lower prices on the world market).

This article coincidentally is from today: http://www.cbc.ca/story/business/national/2004/11/05/dollar_110504.html


The U.S. dollar has now moved below the $1.20 CDN level – widely seen as a key psychological barrier for the currency to cross.

The U.S. dollar also set a record low against the euro, trading as low as $1.2950 US per euro and the greenback was also down against the yen and the pound.

Currency traders said the huge U.S. trade and budget deficits remain major overhangs for the U.S. dollar. The high price of crude oil is also seen as a major drag on the U.S. economy. There's also a widely-held feeling that the Bush White House is not overly concerned by a low dollar.

If anything, a lower dollar may help the US domestically. In the long run if it stays that way it might drive the trade deficit down, and it makes it less attractive for US companies to outsource. It's certainly making it harder for Canadian companies to export to the US and keep their margins up, while at the same time making it cheaper to buy large equipment and technology, which often comes from the US.

But yeah, I don't think Russia stayed against the war to protect themselves from financial ruin, or even for those profits. They just had their own little Vietnam in the 80's with our good buddy Osama, they have no interest in neo-colonialism or imperialism or whatever you want to call it. They probably knew full well that they didn't have much to gain from it even if it did go ahead, which they MUST have known it would, why spend the amount of money and troops that they could better use levelling Grozny again?