[spacefreak]

Gotta give credit to this guy who wrote this article, What if Bush has been right all along?. He admits that after 3 years of hostile, anti-Bush sentiment, he is finally starting to get what many of us conservatives have understood the whole time.

Some selected passages from the article. I definitely suggest reading the entire piece...

Maybe you're like me and have opposed the Iraq war since before the shooting started -- not to the point of joining any peace protests, but at least letting people know where you stood.

You didn't change your mind when our troops swept quickly into Baghdad or when you saw the rabble that celebrated the toppling of the Saddam Hussein statue, figuring that little had been accomplished and that the tough job still lay ahead.

Despite your misgivings, you didn't demand the troops be brought home immediately afterward, believing the United States must at least try to finish what it started to avoid even greater bloodshed. And while you cheered Saddam's capture, you couldn't help but thinking I-told-you-so in the months that followed as the violence continued to spread and the death toll mounted.

By now, you might have even voted against George Bush -- a second time -- to register your disapproval.

But after watching Sunday's election in Iraq and seeing the first clear sign that freedom really may mean something to the Iraqi people, you have to be asking yourself: What if it turns out Bush was right, and we were wrong?

It's hard to swallow, isn't it? [...}

On the other side of that barrier is a concept some of us have had a hard time swallowing:

Maybe the United States really can establish a peaceable democratic government in Iraq, and if so, that would be worth something.

Would it be worth all the money we've spent? Certainly.

Would it be worth all the lives that have been lost? That's the more difficult question, and while I reserve judgment on that score until such a day arrives, it seems probable that history would answer yes to that as well.

I don't want to get carried away in the moment.

[IceBreaker]

beat me to it!

hehehehe

[spacefreak]

Not only did I beat you to it... I also added some of my own commentary, which I always think adds that personal touch.

It was an interesting article.

[IceBreaker]

heehe..agreed..just enjoying watching the libs enjoy their meal....

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by BRussell:
So if I go to http://www.drudgereport.com I won't see a link to this article?

I don't know. Give it a try. I'm sure there are plenty of sites linking to this article, though it really doesn't matter who is linking to it. None of that changes the content or the original source.

[mikellanes]

I think its way to early to say "Well dang, Bush was right on this"

I don't think for many it was about right/wrong. To some people it was the feeling that they were tricked in to supporting the war with the WMD threats

For some it was the "terror" threat. What real threat was there from Iraq, possible training ground, we don't know the extent of help or funding Saddam gave yet.

Does the situation in Iraq now help to quench threat or is it increasing it for the future?

There are plenty of oppressed people still, will we be invading Cuba next?

How about N. Korea who I see as a real threat to more people than Saddam was proven to be.

The fact is if Bush wants to leave a legacy of spreading peace, I don't think anyone I know would be opposed to that if it is carried out properly and with the truth up front. The difference is spreading peace does not equal spreading your ideals.

I will never agree with Bush on everything, especially social issues, that would be unrealistic to expect.

I will never disagree with Bush on everything, that would be unrealistic to expect.

Iraq still remains to be seen for me.

[tie]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Gotta give credit to this guy who wrote this article, What if Bush has been right all along?. He admits that after 3 years of hostile, anti-Bush sentiment, he is finally starting to get what many of us conservatives have understood the whole time.

"You conservatives" haven't understood anything -- that is, any one thing -- the whole time. The rationale for the war changed as the events changed. It became freeing the Iraqis only after it turned out Iraq was no threat to national security, and had no relevance to the war on terrorism.

Before the "freedom" rationale, you were posting "OMG!! WMDs found in IRAQ!!" threads every day in this forum. Or "OMG!! 9/11 LiNK discovered!". You personally (spacefreak) were talking about your inside information that Bush was saving up WMD/terrorist information to release at a politically convenient time. I think by now it is quite clear that what Bush said was completely wrong, and there is strong evidence that he knowingly lied.

This whole time, the only constant has been spacefreak predicting that any minute now, the liberals were going to be shown to be wrong. Hasn't happened yet.

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Heck, my sources become giddy when even approaching this issue, forecasting a massive egg-in-the-face-of-liberals bonanza.

[NYCFarmboy]

interesting quote from the New York Times today:

"The challenge for the British left in particular is: Are you for democracy in the Middle East even though Bush is in favor of it?"


I think that quote sums up everything.

The left has become so personally embittered with President Bush that they have boxed themselves into a very uncomfortable corner of actually opposing democracy for the sake of consistency in their personal & irrational hatred of the President.







http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/01/in...tml?oref=login

[Spliffdaddy]

life is good.

[DBursey]

The presence of a silver lining does not negate the massive dark cloud of shifting rationale. Does this particular 'end' justify the ill-conceived means?

Hundreds of American soldiers went to their graves believing their nebulous search for WMD's to be legitimate. Many more probably died believing their sacrifice to have served the fight against terror. For which lie did they die?

It matters not; a soldier serves without question, motivated solely by discipline to the corps. It is his civilian countrymen for whom deception is required.

... their personal & irrational hatred of the President.

Your simplistically false premise is showing.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by tie:
"You conservatives" haven't understood anything -- that is, any one thing -- the whole time. The rationale for the war changed as the events changed. It became freeing the Iraqis only after it turned out Iraq was no threat to national security, and had no relevance to the war on terrorism.

No matter how many times you get your ass handed to you on this argument, you continue to cover your ears and shout "I can't hear you, I can't hear you". There were always numerous reasons for going in. WMDs were one of those, and the one that required that the operation happen sooner than later.

Before the "freedom" rationale, you were posting "OMG!! WMDs found in IRAQ!!" threads every day in this forum. Or "OMG!! 9/11 LiNK discovered!". You personally (spacefreak) were talking about your inside information that Bush was saving up WMD/terrorist information to release at a politically convenient time. I think by now it is quite clear that what Bush said was completely wrong, and there is strong evidence that he knowingly lied.

What I said was that more stuff was found than was initially disclosed in Kay's initial report. I guesstimated that it would be released at a later date, and it was. The documents found provided a clear picture of the ongoing relationship between N. Korea, Libya, and Iraq in regards to how they were cooperating in their nuclear pursuits.

This whole time, the only constant has been spacefreak predicting that any minute now, the liberals were going to be shown to be wrong. Hasn't happened yet.

You liberals continue to be proven wrong. From the estimates of 50,000- 80,000 coalition deaths right up and through this recent election. Your response? "I can't hear you, I can't hear you".

Even when David Kay reported to Congress, after his survey, that Iraq was "even more dangerous than we thought"... even when the N. Korea-Iraq-Libya nuke/ICBM development ring was exposed... or the discovery of turnkey chemical agent laboratories in Iraq (conveniently sanitized, of course), what do we get from the liberals? "I can't hear you, I can't hear you".

Nice derail. It's obvious that these recent developments have struck a major blow to your entire agenda. You could have argued about the content of the article, but you realized that you couldn't.

Oh, and that quote of mine... is that the best that you could find? Why don't you spend another hour or so digging up another of my quotes from years ago to argue, because you sure as hell aren't winning any of today's arguments.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by DBursey:
Hundreds of American soldiers went to their graves believing their nebulous search for WMD's to be legitimate. Many more probably died believing their sacrifice to have served the fight against terror. For which lie did they die?

The military's #1 objective was to remove Saddam and his regime from power. #2 was to secure the country while a new government was formed.

Looks like you're another liberal who has no idea how to debate the article posted. Good attempt at a derail, though.

Next.

[DBursey]

... and you, mr freak, seem as one who understands the finer points of debate not in the least, given your consistent intellectual refuge in ad hominem characterizations.

The discussion alludes to the invasion's political as opposed to its military rationale. But thanks for your dispensation of the utterly obvious.

[SimpleLife]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
The military's #1 objective was to remove Saddam and his regime from power. #2 was to secure the country while a new government was formed.

Looks like you're another liberal who has no idea how to debate the article posted. Good attempt at a derail, though.

Next.

To be exact:

Rumsfeld Lists Operation Iraqi Freedom Aims, Objectives

By Jim Garamone
American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, March 21, 2003 -- Defense of the American people is primary among the goals and objectives of U.S. actions in Iraq, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said during a Pentagon press conference today.

Further goals are to eliminate Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and to liberate the Iraqi people.

To achieve these aims, the military coalition is focused of specific goals.

Rumsfeld said the first is to end the regime of Saddam Hussein "by striking with force on a scope and scale that makes clear to Iraqis that he and his regime are finished."

The coalition will identify, isolate and eliminate Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. It will also eliminate Iraq's missiles and other delivery systems, the production capabilities and distribution networks, he said.

Coalition military forces will search for, capture or drive out terrorists who have found refuge in Saddam Hussein's Iraq.

The coalition will also collect intelligence related to terrorist networks in Iraq and beyond and will collect intelligence on the global network of illicit weapons of mass destruction activity. It will end sanctions and immediately deliver humanitarian relief to the displaced and the many needy Iraqi citizens.

The coalition will secure oil fields and resources, "which belong to the Iraqi people and which they will need to develop their country after decades of neglect," Rumsfeld said.

Finally, the coalition will create the conditions for Iraq's rapid transition to a representative government "that is not a threat to its neighbors." The coalition is committed to ensuring the territorial integrity of Iraq.

[bubblewrap]

I thought it was all about getting me my free oil.

[spacefreak]

The troops have seen the mass graves. They've seen the squalor that Iraqis have been living in outside the high walls of Saddam's 22 golden palaces. They've seen the seemingly endless array of weapons caches all over the place, and they understand the long-term goals of this theater.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by SimpleLife:
To be exact:

Thanks for locating and posting that.

[SimpleLife]

Originally posted by bubblewrap:
I thought it was all about getting me my free oil.

That in no way prevents the possible hidden agenda.

History will tell.

Or good reporting.

Or good Justice, if there is a need for one.

[Troll]

45 people died in Iraq on 31 January 2005 and hundreds were injured in terrorist attacks despite unprecedented restrictions on freedom of movement and expression. In any other country on the planet, the elections in Iraq would have been hailed as a complete disaster. But there are so few journalists left in Iraq and it's reasonably difficult to circulate when cars are banned from the roads so George Bush can spin this thing any way he wants. Iraq was going to have this election ready or not. Despite the winter, despite the intimidation, despite the security situation, despite the obvious lack of voter education and despite the killing. Because this was a never an election for the Iraqi people. This election was driven by politics in the USA.

And it hasn't changed anything in Iraq. The only thing that is on the march is a violent insurgency which has grown from around 1,500 people immediately after the war to over 200,000 now. Death and destruction is on the march in Iraq with hundreds of people being violently killed every week in voilence which is increasingly sectarian.

What has George Bush achieved apart from setting off the time bomb everyone told him Iraq was? I think Ted Turner hit the nail on the head last week:

"We've spent $200 billion destroying Iraq. Now we've got to spend $200 billion to rebuild it, if they'll let us. And all to find a nut in a foxhole - one guy."

The problem is that certain people in here and elsewhere insist on applying Bushian binary logic to every political debate they face. You're either pro-war, pro-Bush and anti-terrorism or pro-terrorism, pro-Saddam and anti-war for these people. It seems trite to remind this crowd what the debate has always been about, but let's just repeat the argument for good measure: "liberals" have been saying one thing right from the start: that there were other, better ways of dealing with Saddam Hussein than waging war with Iraq. It's about whether the means employed were appropriate not about whether the end was justified. I believe that these elections could have been held a year ago without the US having spent $400Bn, without hundreds of US and other citizens having been violently killed, thousands of US servicemen having been wounded and without tens or even hundreds of thousands of Iraqis having been ripped apart by bullets and shrapnel. It will take us another 15 or 20 years to determine the cost of getting rid of one nut in a foxhole. The projected cost wasn't justified for Bush's daddy and for me the costs already incurred cannot be justified.

[AKcrab]

What?
Mission accomplished?
Are we done?
We're leaving, and peace rules Iraq?

WTF? WTF?? WTF???? WTF?????

[sideus]

Why does my gas bill keep going up?

[dialo]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
What I said was that more stuff was found than was initially disclosed in Kay's initial report. I guesstimated that it would be released at a later date, and it was..

try not lying.

You specificly claimed to have inside knowledge about silkworm missiles fitted with binary warheads supposedly found by the ISG in Iraq, but it was really just some BS claim from Miniter that you either saw on fox or read at freerepublic (since he made the claim on fox and it was later reported at freerepublic).

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by dialo:
try not lying.

You specificly claimed to have inside knowledge about silkworm missiles fitted with binary warheads supposedly found by the ISG in Iraq, but it was really just some BS claim from Miniter that you either saw on fox or read at freerepublic (since he made the claim on fox and it was later reported at freerepublic).

I'm not lying. I mentioned the silkworms in a later post, but not the initial ones where I had heard via family about the document stashes found. I know this for a fact, for I heard about the silkworms from a different source, and it wasn't Fox or Free Republic, and I know I heard about them sometime after I had heard about the documents.

It's obvious that you have nothing on your side regarding the article posted, but there's really no need to try and turn your frustration into attacks on me. Arguing and making accusations about things I posted years ago only highlights the fact that you have absolutely nothing to contribute to the thread topic.

You know what - keep it up. Your turd-borne strategy here actually supports the subject of the thread. Yet another liberal freaking out.

In other news related to the subject of this thread: Naysayers tight-lipped since success of Iraq vote

____Billionaire Bush-basher George Soros and left-wing filmmaker Michael Moore were among critics of the administration's Iraq policy who had no comment after millions of Iraqis went to the polls in their nation's first free elections in decades.

The Carter Center determined that the security situation in Iraq was going to be too dangerous to send election monitors, so the Atlanta-based human rights organization founded by former President Jimmy Carter posted its personnel in neighboring Jordan.

Despite widespread predictions of spectacular terrorist attacks on election day in Iraq, fewer than 50 were killed, and the 60 percent turnout for the elections was much higher than many predicted.

Asked whether the Carter Center had a comment on the election, spokeswoman Kay Torrance said: "We wouldn't have any 'yea' or 'nay' statement on Iraq."

Mr. Carter told NBC's "Today" show in September that he was confident the elections would not take place. "I personally do not believe they're going to be ready for the election in January ... because there's no security there," he said.

_Mr. Soros, the Open Society Institute founder who contributed millions of dollars to groups seeking to prevent Mr. Bush's re-election, had denounced as a "sham" the administration's plans for a democratic Iraq. [...]

There has been no comment since the Iraq elections from Mr. Moore, the Academy Award-winning filmmaker who characterized the Iraqi insurgents as "Minutemen," and predicted "they will win."

The last posting from Mr. Moore on his Web site (www.michaelmoore.com) is dated Jan. 10 and concerns "Fahrenheit 9/11" being named best dramatic movie in the People's Choice Awards. An e-mail to Mr. Moore requesting comment was not returned.

On the day before the elections, Mr. Moore featured a link to a column in the New York Times with the headline, "A Sinking Sensation of Parallels between Iraq and Vietnam." On the day after the elections, Mr. Moore linked to a story in the left-wing Nation magazine titled "Occupation Thwarts Democracy."

Feel free to read the rest of the article, for I did cut out some fluff.

[MacNStein]

Originally posted by Troll:
45 people died in Iraq on 31 January 2005 and hundreds were injured in terrorist attacks despite unprecedented restrictions on freedom of movement and expression. In any other country on the planet, the elections in Iraq would have been hailed as a complete disaster. But there are so few journalists left in Iraq and it's reasonably difficult to circulate when cars are banned from the roads so George Bush can spin this thing any way he wants. Iraq was going to have this election ready or not. Despite the winter, despite the intimidation, despite the security situation, despite the obvious lack of voter education and despite the killing. Because this was a never an election for the Iraqi people. This election was driven by politics in the USA.

And it hasn't changed anything in Iraq. The only thing that is on the march is a violent insurgency which has grown from around 1,500 people immediately after the war to over 200,000 now. Death and destruction is on the march in Iraq with hundreds of people being violently killed every week in voilence which is increasingly sectarian.

Oooo.. please, stop it, you're making me horny.

BTW, how are you blokes doing with the genocide in Africa? Going to your liking?

[spiky_dog]

the ends do not justify the means.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by spiky_dog:
the ends do not justify the means.

Do the means negate the ends?

[Hugi]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Do the means negate the ends?

Is Israel worth a Holocaust?

[MacNStein]

Originally posted by Hugi:
Is Israel worth a Holocaust?

Is the ME worth a global depopulation?

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Hugi:
Is Israel worth a Holocaust?

I'm sure this post made sense to him, but I am damned if I can figure out how we went from talking about democracy in Iraq to holocausts and Israel.

[MacNStein]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I'm sure this post made sense to him, but I am damned if I can figure out how we went from talking about democracy in Iraq to holocausts and Israel.

In his mind, our support of Israel is what is causing our problems in Iraq (and the ME as a whole). It's a division tactic used by various people who sympathize with the Arab terrorists.

[Hugi]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I'm sure this post made sense to him, but I am damned if I can figure out how we went from talking about democracy in Iraq to holocausts and Israel.

I was attempting to create an "analogy", a common method to illustrate a point. Apparently my English is not good enough for you to get it and I'll set up another example to satisfy those who go haywire when Israel is mentioned: Was WWII an acceptable price for democracy in Japan?

It should be obvious to anyone that the ends do certainly NOT justify the means. There is no such thing as an "acceptable body count".

[Hugi]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
In his mind, our support of Israel is what is causing our problems in Iraq (and the ME as a whole). It's a division tactic used by various people who sympathize with the Arab terrorists.

Wow. Just wow. I use the word Israel in an analogy, and all of a sudden I am blaming the US for all problems in the ME and sympathize with Arab terrorists? How defensive can you possibly get?

[nath]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I am damned if I can figure out how we went from talking about democracy in Iraq to holocausts and Israel.

lol, here you go. Sorry to see it's still causing ya problems.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality

Originally posted by MacNStein:
It's a division tactic used by various people who sympathize with the Arab terrorists.

The three billy goats Gruff called, they say hi, and thanks for the bridge.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Hugi:
Was WWII an acceptable price for democracy in Japan?

It should be obvious to anyone that the ends do certainly NOT justify the means. There is no such thing as an "acceptable body count".

World War II, the ending of genocide against the Jews, the Gypsis, and against the Chinese by Japan, is an excellent illustration of how trite a sentiment like "the ends never justify the means" truly is. That it also resulted in a democratic Germany, Austria, Italy, and Japan, and permanent peace in Europe and between Japan and its neighbors is the iceing on that particular cake, and part of the reason why World War II was indeed worth its terrible price.

Though, note, in the case of Germany, democracy didn't follow in all of the country until another form of tyranny was sent to the ash heap. Before then was 50 years of communism (and 50 years of western leftists apologizing for communism).

Your problem wasn't lack of English. It was lack of perspective. and an overreliance on trite aphorisms.

[Hugi]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:

<snip>
...why World War II was indeed worth its terrible price.
<snip>

Well, if you feel that WWII was "worth it", then we just have wildly differing viewpoints and your take on the Iraq war is understandable. (assuming that democracy will eventually prevail there)
We disagree, no big deal.

BTW, good work fitting in a little liberal bashing with the "50 years of western leftists apologizing for communism"-bit.

[voodoo]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Your problem wasn't lack of English. It was lack of perspective. and an overreliance on trite aphorisms.

Hugi, don't take his projections seriously. People who constantly find faults with others should seriously consider their own issues.

Þessi maður er mesta rassgat sem ég hef nokkurntíman séð skrifa á þessum umræðuvef! Eins og ég kann vel við nánast alla aðra.

[Hugi]

Originally posted by voodoo:
Hugi, don't take his projections seriously. People who constantly find faults with others should seriously consider their own issues.

Þessi maður er mesta rassgat sem ég hef nokkurntíman séð skrifa á þessum umræðuvef! Eins og ég kann vel við nánast alla aðra.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
What if Bush has been right all along?

Is "Mark Brown" Aberdeenwriter's real name?

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Though, note, in the case of Germany, democracy didn't follow in all of the country until another form of tyranny was sent to the ash heap. Before then was 50 years of communism (and 50 years of western leftists apologizing for communism).

Wasn't Germany a democracy before the WWII?

[nath]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
Wasn't Germany a democracy before the WWII?

Yep. Hitler was an elected despot, most of whose power-grabs (once elected) were loudly applauded by his supporters and the mainstream media.

Something for the Bush fanboys to chew on.

[nath]

Originally posted by voodoo:
Hugi, don't take his projections seriously. People who constantly find faults with others should seriously consider their own issues.

Þessi maður er mesta rassgat sem ég hef nokkurntíman séð skrifa á þessum umræðuvef! Eins og ég kann vel við nánast alla aðra.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
Wasn't Germany a democracy before the WWII?

Germany was a monarchy from unification to 1918. It was pretty much an anarchy between 1918 and 1919. It was a democracy roughly between 1919 and 1933. It was a dictatorship between 1933 and 1945. The war broke out in Europe in September 1939, though a year earlier if you were a Czech, and earlier still if you were an Austrian.

So no, Germany wasn't a democracy "before the WWII" -- unless you go back several years prior to WW-II. And even then it was only briefly a democracy.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by nath:
Yep. Hitler was an elected despot,

That's simplistic. Hitler was appointed by Paul Von Hindenberg. Initially, he served as a constitutional Chancellor. He seized power to become dictator after President Hindenberg's death. So it isn't accurate to say that he was "elected despot." I'm sure voters who pulled the lever for the Nazis had an inkling, but the ballot didn't say "vote here for dictatorship."

However, I don't really see the point of this discussion. Just because one country 70 years ago slid from democracy to dictatorship, how does this justify opposing democracy today? Surely there are enough counterexamples of successful emerging democracies to satisfy even the sourest skeptic.

[SimeyTheLimey]

By the way, voodoo, calling someone an "asshole" (rassgat) is against forum rules, even if you do it in Icelandic. Grow up.

[nath]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
So no, Germany wasn't a democracy "before the WWII" -- unless you go back several years prior to WW-II.

[RAILhead]

[nath]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
That's simplistic.

I try to keep it that way. When readers have difficulty even understanding which countries comprise Europe it only seems fair.

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
how does this justify opposing democracy today?

Um, noone opposed democracy in this thread. Put down the strawman.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by nath:
Um, noone opposed democracy in this thread. Put down the strawman.

Let's just say the applause was pro forma.

[Hugi]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
However, I don't really see the point of this discussion. Just because one country 70 years ago slid from democracy to dictatorship, how does this justify opposing democracy today? Surely there are enough counterexamples of successful emerging democracies to satisfy even the sourest skeptic.

Say what? Who is opposing democracy in this thread? What I oppose is your view that WWII was justifiable.

[edit: not "justifiable" but "worth it"]

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Hugi:
What I oppose is your view that WWII was justifiable.

[edit: not "justifiable" but "worth it"]

So genocide and enslavement are OK in your books?