What would have happened, if liberals had their present wish, if we had not invaded Iraq?

1. Saddam had WMD - that is a fact. He also had WMD developmental programs on hold, ready to be activated when UN sanctions were lifted - that is a fact.

2. The US would have soon recalled their military from the mideast, if the weapons inspections were extended, under world pressure, given that UN inspectors failed to discover Saddam's WMD (which could have gone to Syria or have been buried in the desert). The UN weapons inspections would have been discontinued and sanctions lifted.

3. Saddam would then reinstitute WMD development. He was close to developing atomic bombs in the early 90s and would return to quickly develop them.

4. To pursue his goal of taking over the mideast and then marching through Israel in victory, he would plan another invasion of Kuwait. In order to tie up the US., he would have secretly supplied WMD (including nuclear) to Al-Qaeda for them to attack New York and Washington. While the US was in chaos over these attacks, Saddam would have attacked Kuwait with WMD. After securing their oil, he would attack Saudi Arabia and established Iraq as the most powerful nation in the mideast. Oil prices to the US and its allies (not France, Germany, Russia or China) would skyrocket. Meanwhile, he would continue to secretly supply terrorists with WMD in continuing attacks on US soil.

5. The US would go into economic depression. It would not be a peaceful one like in the 30s - it would involve riots and gang robbery, with many people being killed.

6. Israel might have to use nuclear weapons against Saddam if Saddam did not try a first strike to defeat Israel quickly - either way the oil supply in the mideast would be disrupted, provoking a world wide depression.

Liberals living in their La La world say this all could never have happened.

Sorry I just think we rushed to war with no thought on were we would be afterwards. Now our troops are tied up and unable to go anywhere else where we may be needed. What happens if North Korea attacks South Korea tomorrow. What if Ben Laden, who we suppose to be after, starts a coupe in Pakastan and takes over that counrty.

There was no evidence that Al Queda and Iraq were linked. No evidence that WMDs were in Iraq prior to war. Sure it could be restartedWMD program, but Iran has already done that. Sure Saddam was an evil man that killed his own people but that is happening in other countries right now. Are we better off with him gone, yes. But we would be better off if a lot of ruthless dictators were gone and some of them do have WMD's. Do I feel safer, no, matter of fact, I think the radicules just have more reason to attack us now.

Do I feel bad about us taken out Saddam, no, but I think we would have been better off taken out Iran if we were just intent on war. Now we are in nation building and we are bogged down for who knows how long.

Art: We may need to overthrow Iran, or attack Iran, using Israel to do it with our backing, if Iran continues to develop nuclear weapons, and if we can't reach diplomatic agreement with them. This will come to a head after the election. This alone is good reason for our having a military prescence in Iraq - to back up Israel's attack or launch our own against Iran, or to use as leverage in diplomatic efforts. The alternative, of Iran having an efective first strike nuclear capability against Israel, to start a nuclear war in the mideast, is unacceptable except to liberals. World wide depression is the consequence of a nuclear war in the mideast. Is this what you want?

Ric: Sorry I just think we rushed to war with no thought on were we would be afterwards.

Art: It was unpredictable - the aftermath of war in Iraq. We could not sit around and think for years about the unpredictable while our troops languished in the desert. Time was on Saddam's side as pressure was building to withdraw UN sanctions. We had to try to force Saddam to fully comply with UN inspections and Saddam refused to do this (since France, Germany, and Russia assured him they would not let the US attack). We then had to go to war or withdraw and watch as UN inspections came to an end and sanctions were lifted.

The aftermath in Iraq has not been that bad. A thousand of our troops have died, but this has been a small price to pay compared to many thousands dying on US soil from future terorist attacks there, had we left Iraq with Saddam in power.

Ric: Now our troops are tied up and unable to go anywhere else where we may be needed. What happens if North Korea attacks South Korea tomorrow.

Art: Get serious. We have nuclear weapons aimed at N. Korea. All we need to do is give S. Korea, Japan, and Taiwan nuclear weapons to defend themselves if N. Korea refuses to give up theirs. Asia is not the mideast, and no worldwide depression is at stake. Its all about the oil and avoiding a world depression.

Ric: What if Ben Laden, who we suppose to be after, starts a coupe in Pakastan and takes over that counrty.

Art: La La land talk again. Bin Laden is dead or bottled up. Bin Laden is not a factor. He can't even start up his cell phone much less a revolt. Current Al-Qaeda operations would not change one bit if Bin Laden were killed, if he is still alive.

Ric: There was no evidence that Al Queda and Iraq were linked.

Art: Saddam paid families of suicide bombers, allowed terorists to train in Iraq, provided Al-Qaeda sanctuary and medical care, and would have supplied terorists with WMD to use against the US and its close allies once the UN sanctions were lifted. Saddam tried to kill George Bush Sr. and would do anything to hurt the US, particularly to help the terrorists attack it.

Ric: No evidence that WMDs were in Iraq prior to war.

Art: Saddam had anthrax and chemical weapons, and was close to an atomic bomb, at some time before the war. He used chemical weapons against Iran and the Kurds.

Ric: Sure Saddam was an evil man that killed his own people but that is happening in other countries right now. Are we better off with him gone, yes. But we would be better off if a lot of ruthless dictators were gone and some of them do have WMD's.

[This message has been edited by timberman (edited October 29, 2004).]

[This message has been edited by timberman (edited October 29, 2004).]

1. Sadam HAD wmd... gone a long time ago...
2. the rest of your statements are specckelashun....which i basically agree with as being possible maybe even likely, but did not require a war in Iraq to deal with....

Timberamn, i don't have a short memory....
the invasion of Iraq was a cakewalk, and Bush and Rumsfeld thought the rest of it would be too...(they are the ones in LALAland)
the back-pedaling they have been doing since this spring is cuz people are starting to come BACK to their senses after the shock and awe of 911.....

i encourage both of you to read the books or watch the movie Lord of the Rings.....
as you do this, consider that absolute power corrupts absolutely.....
no matter how good or pure you are, it will get your soul in the end.....

that's the reason i am voting "liberal" this time....
trying to accomplish too much at one time is the failure here....
not the goals...

You can set there and disagree all you want. But in our military greed it is stated that we are here to protect. What did we protect ourselves from, a third world country that we filled our minds up with fears that weren't true. That facts are there are more fearful countries out there that do have WMDs and dicators to boot. But we had this little country we could cake walk through, at least we thought, and they had oil so here we are.

Ric

Not that I recall. Yes there was talk of it and yes there was and are folks who say that is why.

We should all remember that we beat the tar out of saddam in the early 90's as we pushed his dumb A$$ out of Kuwait.

At that point Saddam had to have it in for the USA.

Anything he could do to harm us he would have done.

We went to war with Iraq for the right reasons at the time and those who are serving now should have all of our support.

ANY talk other wise is total Bull$hit...

the best defense is an offense? Islam has more reason than EVER to want to fight US now...

Bush and Rumsfeld have done more to mobilise the Islamic fundamentalists than any mullah...
and anybody who understands war, understands that it requires MOTIVATION...

if we re-elect Bush--
we are going to have to be doing a lot of killing...
if we elect Kerry we will have to do more killing also, but maybe not as much....

am i whining..NO...
i am just trying to tell you the facts...

this crap Bush keeps spouting about not blinking..LOL not showing weakness...it SHOWS whether you admit it or not...and all he is really doing is concealing the truth from HIMSELF...

The real reason has nothing to do with it.

Sorry.

I am saying politics and the political statements made buy anyone disrespecting our troops should be charged with treason and our hung.

until 911, peace was looking more likely and possible than ever....

osam did 911 in an attempt to get US to do EXACTLY what Bush did....

MY frustration/disappointment with Bush lies in his obvious lack of diplomacy...

911 should have been used to build a world consensus......
we could have used it to FORGE peace agreements that would have held....
instead he has told almost every other world leader to shove it.....

watch Rumsfeld's War. it plainly explains how the military has been abused by Bush...and it has....

of course the guys serving right now follow their leader...the UCMJ requires it...
and they will follow Kerry....some of them might have been convinced by Bush not to respect Kerry, but i have been yelling about that for months....

if you recall, Bush's scorched earth campaign for the presidency is what truly mobilised my attitude...the more DD i did, the more things i have found that show me Bush is no friend of the troops...no friend at all...

We report, you get it wrong
By Jim Lobe

WASHINGTON - The more commercial television news you watch, the more wrong you are likely to be about key elements of the Iraq War and its aftermath, according to a major new study released in Washington on Thursday.

And the more you watch the Rupert Murdoch-owned Fox News channel, in particular, the more likely it is that your perceptions about the war are wrong, adds the report by the University of Maryland's Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA).

Based on several nationwide surveys it conducted with California-based Knowledge Networks since June, as well as the results of other polls, PIPA found that 48 percent of the public believe US troops found evidence of close pre-war links between Iraq and the al-Qaeda terrorist group; 22 percent thought troops found weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in Iraq; and 25 percent believed that world public opinion favored Washington's going to war with Iraq. All three are misperceptions.

The report, Misperceptions, the Media and the Iraq War, also found that the more misperceptions held by the respondent, the more likely it was that s/he both supported the war and depended on commercial television for news about it.

The study is likely to stoke a growing public and professional debate over why mainstream news media - especially the broadcast media - were not more skeptical about the Bush administration's pre-war claims, particularly regarding Saddam Hussein's WMD stockpiles and ties with al-Qaeda.

"This is a dangerously revealing study," said Marvin Kalb, a former television correspondent and a senior fellow of the Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University.

While Kalb said he had some reservations about the specificity of the questions directed at the respondents, he noted that, "People who have had a strong belief that there is an unholy alliance between politics and the press now have more evidence." Fox, in particular, has been accused of pursuing a chauvinistic agenda in its news coverage despite its motto, "We report, you decide".

Overall, according to PIPA, 60 percent of the people surveyed held at least one of the three misperceptions through September. Thirty percent of respondents had none of those misperceptions.

Surprisingly, the percentage of people holding the misperceptions rose slightly over the last three months. In July, for example, polls found that 45 percent of the public believed US forces had found "clear evidence in Iraq that Hussein was working closely with al-Qaeda". In September, 49 percent believed that.

Likewise, those who believed troops had found WMD in Iraq jumped from 21 percent in July to 24 percent in September. One in five respondents said they believed that Iraq had actually used chemical or biological weapons during the war.

In determining what factors could create the misperceptions, PIPA considered a number of variables in the data.

It found a high correlation between respondents with the most misperceptions and their support for the decision to go to war. Only 23 percent of those who held none of the three misperceptions supported the war, while 53 percent who held one misperception did so. Of those who believe that both WMDs and evidence of al-Qaeda ties have been found in Iraq and that world opinion backed the United States, a whopping 86 percent said they supported war.

More specifically, among those who believed that Washington had found clear evidence of close ties between Hussein and al-Qaeda, two-thirds held the view that going to war was the best thing to do. Only 29 percent felt that way among those who did not believe that such evidence had been found.

Another factor that correlated closely with misperceptions about the war was party affiliation, with Republicans substantially "more likely" to hold misperceptions than Democrats. But support for Bush himself as expressed by whether or not the respondent said s/he intended to vote for him in 2004 appeared to be an even more critical factor.

The average frequency of misperceptions among respondents who planned to vote for Bush was 45 percent, while among those who plan to vote for a hypothetical Democrat candidate, the frequency averaged only 17 percent.

Asked "Has the US found clear evidence Saddam Hussein was working closely with al-Qaeda"? 68 percent of Bush supporters replied affirmatively. By contrast, two of every three Democrat-backers said no.

But news sources also accounted for major differences in misperceptions, according to PIPA, which asked more than 3,300 respondents since May where they "tended to get most of [their] news''. Eighty percent identified broadcast media, while 19 percent cited print media.

Among those who said broadcast media, 30 percent said two or more networks; 18 percent, Fox News; 16 percent, CNN; 24 percent, the three big networks - NBC (14 percent), ABC (11 percent), CBS (9 percent); and three percent, the two public networks, National Public Radio (NPR) and Public Broadcasting Service (PBS).

For each of the three misperceptions, the study found enormous differences between the viewers of Fox, who held the most misperceptions, and NPR/PBS, who held the fewest by far.

Eighty percent of Fox viewers were found to hold at least one misperception, compared to 23 percent of NPR/PBS consumers. All the other media fell in between.

CBS ranked right behind Fox with a 71 percent score, while CNN and NBC tied as the best-performing commercial broadcast audience at 55 percent. Forty-seven percent of print media readers held at least one misperception.

As to the number of misconceptions held by their audiences, Fox far outscored all of its rivals. A whopping 45 percent of its viewers believed all three misperceptions, while the other commercial networks scored between 12 percent and 16 percent. Only nine percent of readers believed all three, while only four percent of the NPR/PBS audience did.

PIPA found that political affiliation and news source also compound one another. Thus, 78 percent of Bush supporters who watch Fox News said they thought the United States had found evidence of a direct link to al-Qaeda, while 50 percent of Bush supporters who rely on NPR/PBS thought so.

Conversely, 48 percent of Fox viewers who said they would support a Democrat believed that such evidence had been found. But none of the Democrat-backers who relied on NPR/PBS believed it.

The study also debunked the notion that misperceptions were due mainly to the lack of exposure to news.

Among Bush supporters, those who said they follow the news "very closely", were found more likely to hold misperceptions. Those Bush supporters, on the other hand, who say they follow the news "somewhat closely" or "not closely at all" held fewer misperceptions.

Conversely, those Democratic supporters who said they did not follow the news very closely were found to be twice as likely to hold misperceptions as those who said they did, according to PIPA.

quote:

---

Originally posted by glassman:
we call Rumsfeld the secretary of DEFENSE for a reason.....

the best defense is an offense? Islam has more reason than EVER to want to fight US now...

Bush and Rumsfeld have done more to mobilise the Islamic fundamentalists than any mullah...
and anybody who understands war, understands that it requires MOTIVATION...

if we re-elect Bush--
we are going to have to be doing a lot of killing...
if we elect Kerry we will have to do more killing also, but maybe not as much....

am i whining..NO...
i am just trying to tell you the facts...

this crap Bush keeps spouting about not blinking..LOL not showing weakness...it SHOWS whether you admit it or not...and all he is really doing is concealing the truth from HIMSELF...

Kery isn't weak, Bush says he's weak,
but Bush has demonstrated serious problems with telling the truth over and over again...

---

Ric

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bob Frey:
Ric, not saying your words were Bull$hit.

Sorry.

I am saying politics and the political statements made buy anyone disrespecting our troops should be charged with treason and our hung.

[This message has been edited by Bob Frey (edited October 29, 2004).]

---

Bush and Rumsfeld dropped over 800 bombs ......
the numbers of dead civilians in Iraq are hard to determine FO.....
YES!!!!! we are PART of the problem...this is self-evident...

no. i don't think they are peaceful..read my old posts i said WE Americans have no idea what it takes to run iraq...we won't like it..

change Iraq to USA and you can also apply this to Bush...cuz Dad Bush would not have done this either.....he could have and DIDN'T.....there has been a fundamental change in conservatism in US...

Ric

quote:

---

Originally posted by futuresobjective:
kerry is a problem. I simply can not understand how you buy into the garbage that comes out of his mouth. Show me one thing he has ever done in his entire life as part of the system that can prove he is somebody that can get the job done. He is one of the most liberal senators, he has no concrete history of action. He seems to be going through the motions, but can not back them up. I do believe (or buy into the idea, if thats what you want to say) that he will do or say anything to get into office. That is exactly what seems to be going on. What is the truth that President Bush is not admitting to? that we are at war? that troops are dieing? that this war will have a favorable outcome long term for our country and its safety? That in fact we are safer today because of it? That We should not show weakness? That despite countries that tried to profit from the situation in Iraq, we still did what was right? That all the evidence showed he was a threat? That kerry said he was a threat? That if in fact we did not act the problem would have escalated? What is it that you are trying to say? You are either strong, or weak. Strength comes from the resolve it takes to do what must be done, not from saying what must be done. How can you even consider kerry as a viable candidate after looking at his history, his lack of commitment as a senator, his inability to tell the truth about the war in Iraq. It amazes me that people are so willing to buy into the idea of a fictional leader. Make no mistake about it, he is no leader, he lacks the ability to get a job done under pressure. What amazes me most is his choice of edwards for his running mate. How do you select someone with so little experience to be in a position that some want him in? That alone shows the lack of respect kerry has for this country and the position he is seeking. Seriously edwards is a joke, and having him as a running mate in the race for the white house, is even more of a joke. A selection like that provides an example of just how out of touch with reality he is. Now I do understand that maybe in 15 years or so edwards may be a selection that could not be laughed at, but right now it truly is nothing more than a joke. Neither of them are viable candidates, but the fictional tales they tell of what they would like to do, seems to be capturing the hearts of the naive. It is a nice bedtime story for a two-year-old, but when they wake up the reality of this world beckons.

---

the list of untruths is LOOONGGG..... i can't believe you even ask this question....

we ARE safer today because of Iraq????

..that is not a fact, it is an opinion...
the fact that we haven't been attacked again on our own soil is not relevant since the time between the last two was 8 years...

quote:

---

Originally posted by glassman:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by futuresobjective:
[b] Any person who is willing to bomb innocent people in their own country, is a terrorist, do you actually believe that these people are peaceful? do you think they understand reason? Even if one of these people joined because someone in their family died due to this war, does that still make them right? You talk as if we are the problem. The problem is in their beliefs, and understanding of the world.

Bush and Rumsfeld dropped over 800 bombs ......
the numbers of dead civilians in Iraq are hard to determine FO.....
YES!!!!! we are PART of the problem...this is self-evident...

no. i don't think they are peaceful..read my old posts i said WE Americans have no idea what it takes to run iraq...we won't like it..

[/B]

---

Two very different actions and outcomes we are talking about. I disagree with you on running Iraq. They are a peacfull people, I think all they (as any other human) could ever want is a country which they have the ability to contibute to. Getting them to that state is obviously not easy, particularly with a minority of people causing problems. You seem to suspect that the Iraq people as a entity are not peacful, I could not disagree more.
::::::::::::::::
glas:
change Iraq to USA and you can also apply this to Bush...cuz Dad Bush would not have done this either.....he could have and DIDN'T.....there has been a fundamental change in conservatism in US...

i vote for Dad, and Reagan.... and Dole...and Son Bush..BUT NOT AGAIN...

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bob Frey:
Not voting is one thing but voting for Kerry ouch...

---

believe me Bob, i don't like it...i don't like it at all.....
but i don't feel that i have a choice....

i went thru the same darn thing (that i'm going thru here) at the University arguing FOR Bush, last election...maybe i'm just a contrary SOB...LOL

Ric

quote:

---

Originally posted by futuresobjective:
Ric, did you think they could not read it the first time?

---

The fact that we have not been attacked as often as it seems they would like to attack us makes the threat of them irrelevant? You need to replace the batteries in your alarm clock. Wake up. There is a constant threat is this country, there was before the war, and there will be after. Thas is reality, and has been for some time. It is unfortunate that it took 9/11 to have that threat become the front page of the papes, but the threat is there. If you believe one candidate will make us safer, vote your way. But you can not deny the fact that this threat has become an everyday concern in every Americans life.

my point is that DIPLOMACY is not only good biz, it save lives, and makes for better quality of life...

diplomacy requires give and take....

Bush's idea of give? it's a poke in the eye,
and, well, take???LOL

diplomacy doesn't always work, i agree, but we didn't give it nearly enough time....

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bob Frey:
I guess it is just important that we vote.

---

it doesn't look like that was the plan....

heck, all they had to do was "find" a box of smallpox cultivar in a hidden refrigerator room in one of the NEW palaces.....(the oil-for-food scam was NO secret, how many palaces did he build while under santions?)

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

Man I missed that statement. That is bullsh**. Small price to pay? You need to shut up as far as I am concerned. You have no respect for the troops or this country. I am usely pretty passive in my comments but that was so uncalled for.

Ric

These people fail to realize that Saddam would then go back to developing WMD, including nuclear ones. This would have eventually resulted in disaster in the mideast, with a war there using WMD. No one seems to realize the disruption in oil supply would be economic disaster for the world.

La La land!

Ten years from now Bush will be credited with bringing peace and stability to the mideast, and his leadership will be highly praised, much as Reagan is now praised for winning the cold war. Reagan's cold war actions with Russia were criticized by liberals much as Bush is today criticized.