America... Watch Out!
It was about finishing what we started in 1991. That's all.
Weapons of mass destruction was a failed attempt by the United States to give Europe a reason to joint in the fight, and Europe didn't go for it.
As for international terrorism...well, Saddam was a supporter of international terrorism, and he freely admitted it: he bankrolled suicide bombers in Israel. The real reason for the invasion was simple: Saddam didn't learn his lesson the first time around. We tossed him out of Kuwait and hoped he would play ball, he chose not to, and in fact went out of his way to provoke the United States.
Incidentally, technically we're not at war in Iraq anymore. The war is over, and we won. Combat isn't over, but the war has been over for a very long time. I'm not sure what the correct term is for what is going on there now, but it isn't a war, and that's the problem: our military strategy is designed to fight wars, which are conflicts between states. Our forces are not battling against a state anymore; in fact the only functioning State in Iraq is, for obvious reasons, our ally in the conflict. What we're dealing with there now is quite a bit more complicated than out-and-out warfare, and that's the basic problem.
And I'll not get any more political than that in this forum...
--Dave Althoff, Jr.
I do not expect to change minds with the following take. I grant and accept that there are reasons for differing opinion. I’m not so bold as to pretend that my views are the only way to see this complicated issue! I do however, hope that those of you who are interested the conflict, may find some information that could help you understand why many of us feel differently than what has been discussed previously.
1) That Iraq possessed "weapons of mass destruction" and therefore posed an imminent threat to someone. They did not.AND
but there's little evidence he was naughty in the ten years prior to the war.
Can anyone deny what Saddam did to the Kurds right after Desert Storm? Schwartzkopf was talked into letting Saddam keep his helicopters. Saddam said (actually his military men) that they were necessary for humanitarian reasons, for relief etc. Right. Humanitarian. Saddam proceeded to murder tens of thousands of Kurds and Shii Muslims within his borders through use of chemical weapons. He continued to try to shoot down coalition aircraft for the remainder of his time in power.
Bill Clinton signed the 'The Iraq Liberation Act' in 1998--
Quote: Saddam continued to loom large in American consciousness as a major threat to Western allies such as oil-rich Saudi Arabia and Israel, to Western oil supplies from the Gulf States, and to Middle East stability generally. Bush's successor, U.S. President Bill Clinton (1993-2001), maintained economic sanctions, as well as military control of the "Iraqi no-fly zones". In 1998, in response to the Iraqi ejection of U.N. weapons inspectors, President Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act, declaring that regime change was necessary in order for Iraq to "rejoin the family of nations"[11] and allocating funding to support Iraqi exile groups. This was soon followed by the three-day Operation Desert Fox, an air-strike effort to hamper Saddam's weapons-production facilities; while ground invasion plans were drawn up by Pentagon strategists, some analysts believed that the external pressure might be enough to trigger a domestic uprising to depose Saddam causing a division of opinions within the administration on how to deal with Saddam.
For years and years, the debate raged throughout the United States about whether or not we should re-invade Iraq. But the debate became more pointed after 9/11. On Oct 11, 2002 the democrat controlled Senate voted 77-23 to invade. Senator Byrd led an attempt to filibuster the vote, but he was voted down by 75 votes to break the filibuster.
The debate raged on. We had been attacked. It was the worst attack on American Soil in its history (excluding the Civil War). Worse than the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. But still, the debate raged, and raged.
The US tried everything it could to try to get Saddam to cooperate. Does anybody remember the UN resolutions? Finally, in Sep 2002, Pres Bush announced that Saddam was history. He needed to go, no matter what. But even then, we offered him the opportunity to go into exile in another country. He declined. We debated, and debated, and debated…
March 20, 2003. After months and months of debate (years actually, but we'll keep it to a manageable timeline). The US invaded. Why? The fear that Saddam had, or would soon have, WMDs cannot be understated. It was real at that time. The Senate had access to the same intelligence the President had. All of Europe had access to the same information. All intelligence at that time indicated that there was indeed WMD’s or would soon be WMD’s in Iraq!
Did Saddam have WMDs? We may never know for sure, but I suspect he either had them and shipped them to another country in the months between our threats and the actual invasion, or that he was very close to getting them. Iran now has them and Iraq had far better scientists than Iran. But the point is…
We had our debates, we had our votes in the House and Senate. Not for days, not for less than 24 hours (as in the case of Pearl Harbor) but for months and, one could argue, years. We asked the UN to step in but Saddam had Red China, Russia and the cowardly French in their hip pockets. Even still the UN passed a resolution against Saddam, saying we had the right take action if they did not comply.
...Fast Forward
We are presently at war. More democrats voted for the war than against it. All the Republicans but one voted for it.
2) That Saddam had ties to al Qaeda. He did not.
I cannot argue that Saddam personally had ties with al Quaeda…but there is no doubt that Jordanian Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the leader of an Islamic group in northern Iraq called Ansar al-Islam is believed to have links to al-Qaeda. And Zarqawi, an al-Qaeda operative, was in Baghdad. He's the guy that ordered the killing of a US diplomat... If you believe that this guy was able to operate out of Baghdad without Saddam’s knowledge…
As for 9/11, the problem is that liberals misconstrue the linkage that's being made. The Administration does not argue that Iraq or Saddam was involved in the planning for 9/11. But many Democrats/liberals/progressives/whatever continually – and I dare say intentionally - distort every Administration statement relating 9/11 and Iraq as if the Administration is arguing that Iraq was complicit in the planning or execution of 9/11.
That's just bogus. The argument is not that we're punishing Iraq for their (non) involvement in 9/11.
Rather, the argument is that taking down Saddam's regime is one of the things we could do to prevent another attack like 9/11. And that does not necessarily require a finding that Iraq was involved in 9/11. They are two different issues. But that issue never gets discussed because the liberals almost uniformly -- and falsely -- characterize it was claiming that Iraq was "responsible" for 9/11.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3118262.stm
Straight from Bush’s mouth…
"We have no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the 11 September attacks," Mr. Bush told reporters as he met members of Congress on energy legislation.
He's made the argument a ton of times as to how 9/11 changed how we must deal with problems. He's said expressly that, because of 9/11, we must be proactive rather than reactive. Look up any speech he's given on Iraq, and you can find that in there. He has made that "nuanced" argument. Repeatedly.
And in not one of those speeches has he claimed that Saddam or Iraq was responsible for 9/11. Not once.
In conclusion, you can believe what you want about this war…but there are certainly valid reasons that some of us believe that we should be there! The majority from both parties voted for this action. It is only now, when things have gotten a little bit tough that you begin to see certain elements begin to peel away from action that they themselves supported given the same evidence the president had at the time the decision was made!
I certainly have lots of problems with how this war has been handled to date...but I think it is ill-informed to take the democratic talking points, which are nothing but their spin and/or opinion, and spew them back on a coaster message board as if this is fact. Just because the AP is lazy and does this sort of thing, does not been the informed citizen has to buy it from either the right or left! So again, I must disagree with advice such as "read the newspaper or watch the news!" Everybody seems to have an agenda these days. Even us coasterboard posters. The better advice is read the paper and watch the news with a healthy dose of cynicism. You sure as hell cannot trust everything you read or hear...
…I could counter argue the National Guard stuff too, but I’m too tired…maybe another day…Good Night!
*** Edited 9/1/2005 5:35:51 AM UTC by Jeffrey R Smith***
Unfortunately I need to buy gas tomorrow or my kids won't have a coach at game time. I guess I'll have to use my .20 off at the grocery store pumps, but that's assuming that they actually have gas to sell. I'm skeptical.
Jeff - Editor - CoasterBuzz.com - My Blog
Now I can drive to all of those amusement parks...or something.
Don't even try to tell me he didn't make it his business to confuse the issue. If that doesn't reek of being the most twisted, fear and paranoia creating statement ever out of his mouth, I don't know what is.
Bush also said over and over in that speech about what Saddam allegedly had, without any concrete proof, that Saddam couldn't prove he destroyed whatever weapons he had. Now I ask you, as a rational person, how do you prove you destroyed something that no one can prove you had?
Your long response does not change the fact that no WMD's were ever found, and we've been in the country for two years.
And get off your liberal/conservative whatever motif. That's decisive nonsense that has nothing to do with arguing a point.
Jeff - Editor - CoasterBuzz.com - My Blog
According the the gasbuddy site Pittsburgh is slowly catching on though.....$2.99 a gallon and rising in some places.
-Tina
*** Edited 9/1/2005 6:19:52 AM UTC by coasterqueenTRN***
No idea how long it took to build up to that, but I do know it's a one time use kind of thingy. Check back in a few months. ;)
I saved about $18 for filling up at the station that was in front of my store from a program that for all purposes is money we would be spending anyway.
I'd be happy to see prices get back to the $2-$2.50 range, becaue while nominal prices might seem high right now, real inlfation adjusted firgures show's we've been paying that much until the mid 80's. The recent decades cheap surge in gas was nice but not realistic.
http://www.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels/facts/2005/fcvt_fotw364.shtml *** Edited 9/1/2005 7:28:17 AM UTC by Joe E.***
Blinkin Idiot said:
I know that...I'm just a stupid delinquent who doesn't know jack ****.
Couldn't have said that any better myself. If you don't like what other people have to say, don't come to a message board, idiot.
I wasn’t going to get into the whole SUV argument,but here is an interesting comment from the Chief Economist of Business Week as he was commenting on the restoration of the pipelines, made me think a bit.
With the rising price of gas, people might think twice about buying an SUV, which will certainly help the economy.
Gas Demand curve shifts left= quantity demanded falls and price falls= transportation cost decrease= less out of pocket expense for consumers and prices of goods decreases,=consumers have more expendable income=consumer investment (I), and consumption(C) increase= add them to GDP=C + G + I + NX= increase in GDP, economic upturn :)
I was brought up in the school of positive economics though. Whether or not people have the social and economic responsibly to drive a fuel efficient car; and whether the “utility” people receive from driving an Sports Utility Vehichle (pun!) exceeds the economic consequences are up for debate, one which I don’t want to get into :).
Speculation: The Federal government has just killed the SUV as we know it, in the same way that they killed the mini-van and the station wagon.
Justification:
Ever consider why the minivan replaced the station wagon? The minivan was an industry response to a government regulation which made it impractical to build a fleet of large station wagons (I'm talking the old 8-passenger Country Squire-type vehicles, not the hatchback sedans you can get now). The Federal fuel economy standards mandated a certain average fuel economy from each manufacturer's fleet, and the big heavy station wagons couldn't meet the standard at the sales volume they represented. But there was an interesting loop-hole: Light trucks were exempt from CAFE. So the industry constructed a new kind of light truck, called it a "minivan" and it became the new station wagon.
Then the Federal government got wise to this and redefined the minivan so that it isn't a light truck anymore. As of a few years ago, minivans are required to meet the same safety and mileage requirements as passenger cars. Yes, some minivans were redesigned. But the easier solution for the carmakers was to build larger family trucks and call them Sport Utility Vehicles. The family light truck was back.
Just last week, the Federal government passed legislation which imposes CAFE requirements on SUVs. Anybody care to guess how the industry is going to get around this one? Even larger trucks? SUVs with open beds on the back? Family cars that can be classified as "transit bus"?
--Dave Althoff, Jr.
(Many of the facts I cite here can be found in this very informative Times article.)
As for gas prices: the Atlanta stations may not be gouging (though I suspect that they are)---supply in that neck of the woods is more drastically affected than other places. Together with many other locations in the southern Midwest and interior South, the only viable supply mechanisms were pipelines that originate in the gulf, and they aren't running. You can't just magically create or reposition a fleet of tanker trucks or railway containers to move that much fuel. In contrast, coastal areas, the Great Lakes region, and a few other places can be (and are) served by tanker. That could explain the large price differentials. North Carolina's governor has in fact acknowledged that many areas of the state are facing gas shortages in the very near future.
However, it seems clear that the $3.00+ prices are not at all gouging. The futures market is at $2.67. That's the raw cost of material---it doesn't include (the often substantial) taxes imposed, delivery costs, or profit for distributors/sales points. Granted, the country currently has a 20 day supply of gasoline (again, see the NYTimes article), so the full effect of today's commodity price is yet to be felt, but it's reasonble to expect some interim price increases, because the distributors have to pay that cost today, so they have to start passing some of those increases on right away to maintain their cash positions. Add to that the fact that a nontrivial amount of refining capacity is offline, and will be for at least another week to ten days (NYTimes article), and the $3.30 I see in my neck of the woods doesn't seem to be completley out of line.
It is more expensive than last week, but it's not hard to see why.
As to the original question: would the price of gas change our plans. We planned to go to CP tomorrow for our "last summer visit." I briefly flirted with not going, but not because of the cost. My minivan reliably gets about 26 at least in highway driving, so I'm only burning about eight gallons to get there and back. The extra $5 it would cost doesn't really matter. On the other hand, if there really were significant shortages, it would be irresponsible to spend gas on a trip to an amusement park I've been to several times this season. But, given that (at the moment) it would seem supply can keep pace, I don't feel bad about going.
And soon Detroit will be a ghost town...
I don't think you need the future tense here.
*** Edited 9/1/2005 1:54:09 PM UTC by Brian Noble***
-Tina
Kroger's program is more complicated, but I think it allows for multiple visits per discount or something like that. I don't know; I tend not to shop at Kroger.
--Dave Althoff, Jr.
It all goes back to "When it bleeds, it leads" mentality, where bad news will make better headlines. Much like how Hurricane Katrina is dominating the headlines right now, meanwhile hardly anyone is mentioning that Cleveland is no longer the poorist city in the nation.
With this polling data from Gallup...
http://www.gallup.com/poll/content/default.aspx?ci=10024
To me it looks very political to me, where Democrats and Republicans are almost exactly opposite of each other. So disregard that and look at the independants. You see that yes, they still feel that the war was a mistake. Making the assumption that independents will only get their news from newspapers and television but not talk radio, its interesting to note that statistic.
Since when have you heard good news coming out of Iraq? Last time I checked the paper I haven't really seen anything of the sort. I read about the bombings the delaying of their Constitution and unfortunately the Stampede that occured earlier this week.
Yet we haven't seen the news about 3,100 schools that have been renovated and reopened, we don't hear about the 47 countries that have re-established their embassies, we don't hear about Iraq's new airforce and naval force, and we don't hear about the %158 jump in cell phone usage in Iraq as well.
My point is, a few thousand thugs that are bombing innocent people who are going about their lives are making news because it MAKES news and stirs interest. Much like how we hear about the thugs here that are looting New Orleans. We KNOW that this doesn't represent the majority of the people here, yet its what is making news. Much like Cindy Sheehan making news in her protest while we don't hear about the other 1,799+ mothers who lost their children in Iraq. If she represented the majority of the mothers who lost their children in Iraq, wouldn't we be learning more names of those mothers?
I'm sure if more people heard what is actually going on in Iraq as far as rebuilding goes, that poll would tell a much different story.
~Rob Willi
Jeff - Editor - CoasterBuzz.com - My Blog
You automatically assume that because I'm stating news that goes against what the media is reporting is coming from Fox News (which I find that its funny its ratings are obliterating CNN, NBC, ABC, and CBS). But what good is a poll?
A poll is basically an op-ed piece and is based on only one fact: The opinion of a group of people. A fact based on an opinion. Let me repeat that for you, son.
FACTS BASED ON OPINION
Even if the polls are valid Jeff, they are still opinions of a group of people, so how exactly is that going to hold ground? It's simply an op-ed piece disguised as an article stating (let me say it again) facts based on opinion. What I stated are FACTS, events that actually occured and you retaliate with the ever growing tired of the Fox News arguEment.
Of course if I go read the blogs of the people I'm fighting against of course they are going to say how they are winning. When was the last time you heard Six Flags admit that they are having a piss poor year because THEY are providing bad customer service? When was the last time any company openly admitted that they are going under?
I'm surprised that since you used Fox News as ammo that you didn't come out and say that I asked you "Why you hate America?" That one is pretty old too.
My real question is... why are you supporting the wussification of America?
~Rob Willi
You must be logged in to post
