rotorooter

Cost of Marshall Plan was about $10 billion. Accounting for inflation, the over $200 billion expenditure so far on Iraq war has probably already far exceeded that amount.

considering that this thing is gonna go on for a while you can safely add a few 100 more billions to the cost.

and assuming that all goes well and Sunni insurgency has been totally overpowered, the fundamentalist shias would be firmly entrenched in power and strengthen and increase Iran influence further.

Remember Iraq had dismantled its nuclear plan soon after the gulf war I, it is Iran who is building the bomb, and short of launching a war against them there is no other way to stop them from building the bomb.


The only way to prevent war is to prevent the tyranny that causes it.[/quote]

Leader

Bush didn't lie. He was wrong. Along with the CIA, dozens of other international intelligence services, and most of Saddam’s own people. So they must all be liars, right?

Completely false.

Wrong again.

That proves people would like to go back and change what has already happened. Not that they support the disastrous cut and run policy you are advocating.

What F*cking Idiots they are, right?

And taxes, social security, education, but mostly the war.

__________________

Shek

Stop spinning (or really, lying, since you know your statements to be untrue). Lying requires you to use statements that are knowingly false. Intelligence assessments about Iraqi WMD have proven to be incorrect, but that was not known at the time of the initiation of hostilities. US intelligence assessments were in line with numerous other countries, and Saddam certaintly did nothing to dispel the notion that he had WMDs through his delay tactics and carefully choreographed inspections when the UN inspectors did return.

Also, you poll numbers tell only a small portion of the story and aren't in line with other polls. For example, a TIPP poll taken at the same time (they had the best poll for the 2004 election) found that 60% of Americans believe that Iraq has sowed the seeds of democracy in Iraq. 70% believe that it is important to stay the course in Iraq. 84% believe that it's important to train the ISF. 79% believe that it is important to provide economic aid. 74% believe that it is important to help rebuild the infrastructure. 57% believe that OIF has "dealt a significant blow to terrorist networks worldwide." 49% (vs. 42% in opposition) are satisfied with Bush's Iraq policies. 48% (vs. 49% in opposition) support the April 2003 invasion. Only 46% believe that Iraq has sent a signal to Iran and N. Korea, and only 46% believe that OIF has made the world safer.

http://www.tipponline.com/articles/05/i061405.htm

As far as support for OIF always being on the margin, a TIPP poll in April 2003 found that 63% of Americans agreed with the decision to invade Iraq and President Bush had all time high approval ratings. Your factual grasp of history is weak at best.

Leader

People's freedom and our security don't have price tags to me. Maybe you see yourself as different from people in Iraq. Your money is more important then their freedom?

How much is your freedom worth? If I give the government a couple million dollars to throw you in a cell, should they?

Maybe one of my esteemed colleagues here who has been to Iraq can tell us if most Shias in Iraq are "fundamentalists." I doubt it.

So you would support such a war?

Wow you said something true...oh wait...you were just quoting someone else.

Shek

You have an inaccurate comparison. You are comparing the cost of combat operations in Iraq to the cost of an economic recovery plan. If you want to do some comparisons, you should compare oranges with oranges, not with apples. For example, inflation adjusted, I calculated WWII to cost $3,005bn. While that was a worldwide war, costs of military operations are also more cost intensive due to the high tech nature of our armed forces. We could spend less, but that would mean higher costs in life and limbs. As far as economic recovery, we've appropriated just over $18bn. While we have also spent more on infrastructure through CERP, I know that we have diverted more of the $18bn towards security instead of reconstruction, so we're at <$18bn vs. >$200bn.

Next, show proof that the fundamentalist Shias will be entrenched in power. All you're presenting is spin. Try to make comparisons to Iran. Oops, al-Sistani, the most powerful Shiite cleric in Iraq has actively called against clergical interference in politics. What were some of the first acts of the new "fundamentalist" Shia government? Allowing nightclubs to stay open later and more stores to sell alcohol. That's fundamentalism to the core! http://iraqiexpat.blogspot.com/2005/...s-alcohol.html

You should quite offering up such softballs, although it is fun to keep hitting them out of the park!

rotorooter

Nope, the "intelligence assessments" was souped by the Administration to mould the public opinion in favor of war.

Read the interview of the ex-CIA guy who was incharge of handling intelligence on Iraq.

Read the 8 leaked British govt. memos in which Brits officials are saying that Bush does not have a case against Iraq and Bush and co. are souping up the evidence.

This story appeard again in the NYTimes a few days ago, the link is still around.


No, that is nothing more than spin. I don't remember once foreign Intelligence agency corraborating CIA's assertion except for the Brits (apparentally they did not agree in private either, as the leaked memos have shown)

On top of that the UN chief Wepons inspector said that Iraq did not have WMD.

Didn't he say he did not have WMD's ?

Stop quoting old polls, look at the recent polls. Now that all the lies have been unravelled, People have more information than they did last year.

Answer me this, if in late 2002 Bush Administration had told the American people that Iraq did not have WMD and Iraq did not have link with OBL, majority if the American people whould have still supported attacking iraq?

The answer of course would be NO.

rotorooter

Like I said, Iraq war had nothing to do with "freedom and democracy", because if it was then Bush would not be getting into an alliance with Musharraf who is oppressing 150 million Pakistanis, and Karimov who is oppressing 30 million Uzbeks.

Oppressing 180 million (150 million Pakistanis + 30 million Uzbeks) for the sake of democratizing 25 million Iraqis does not wash.

If you look at post ww2 history, US has history of supporting the most vile tyrants and dictators from Latin America to Middle East, from Indo-China to South-East Asia, all over the world. Least you forget, it was not long ago Saddam used to be close ally of US.

Leader

Prove it.

link?

Which doesn't prove anything, but you wouldn't know that because you get all your news form the NYTimes.

You either have a faulty memory or you weren't paying attention. No less hardened opponents to the war then the French believed Iraq had WMD.

A quote from before the war please.

Then why did he obstruct inspections for 10 years?

"Conducted June 6-10 among 913 adults." Did you even look at the article?

F*cking 2 weeks ago.

First Iraq had extensive links to terrorism and Saddam was a terrorist himself. So yes the majority probably would still have supported his removal, but the question is purely academic. We can't go back and not invade. So you would have as cut and run now?

Leader

Like I said, you’re completely wrong.

There is no alternative.

We shouldn't have done that, but it doesn't prove that Iraq has nothing to do with freedom and democracy.

They would have been oppressed anyway. Repeating a point that I have already refuted isn't going to get you anywhere.

So? It was wrong. Now we are trying to make it right in Iraq.

Shek

Rotorooter,
You're so weak. Provide links and analysis to prove your point instead of spouting off Kerry campaign talking points and saying that links exist.

That ex-CIA guy who was head of the ISG, here's a link and excerpt:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middl...kay_01-29.html

JIM LEHRER: What exactly did you expect to find?

DAVID KAY: Going in we expected to find large stocks of chemical and biological agents, weaponized, ready for use on the battlefield, as well as a fairly substantial nuclear program. We did not find that. We have found it a lot. We have found program activities in those areas. We found a resurgent missile program. But, the large stockpile of actual weapons, chemical and biological weapons simply have not yet been found.

JIM LEHRER: Why did you expect to find them? Why did you think they were there?

DAVID KAY: Well, I think, first of all, because that were the estimates -- not just the estimates by the CIA or the Defense Intelligence Agency, we were going in against the background in which the U.N. had spoken of large numbers of missing material that could have been weaponized. There were intelligence reports from the British, the French, the Germans and even the Russians which painted a picture of Iraq armed with weapons of mass destruction.

Later on, Kay states: "They (Iraq) also quite clearly during the U.N. days particularly '91 to '95 lied and cheated the U.N. about what they had. So you based up a record of lies and deceits on behalf of the Iraqis that made it hard to believe even when they told the truth."

Maybe you should actually find your own material next time so it doesn't refute your points. Oops.

http://www.qando.net/details.aspx?entry=2024

The memos don't talk about "souping" up evidence. In fact, the memos in the whole aren't that convincing in trying to make a case against the Bush Administration. If you want to get beyond making general accusations, then we can argue whatever points you want to make.

Did Hans Blix state that Saddam didn't have WMD or that his inspectors hadn't found WMD yet? This is a big difference.

Also, as far as corrobarating assessments, I cite your man that you couldn't name, David Kay.

So you want to blindly trust a man who had 16 UNSCRs passed against him, had used WMDs before, had tried to conceal WMDs before that were discovered by UN inspectors and then concealed programs following those discoveries, kicked out UN inspectors in 1998, and reluctantly allowed them to return in 2002, and actively tried to undermine UN sanctions against him through the use of the Oil for Food program? Below is a small sample from the Dalfour report to demonstrate his concealment activities.

http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_...y_Findings.pdf

Initially, Saddam chose to conceal his nuclear program in its entirety, as he did with Iraq’s BW program. Aggressive UN inspections after Desert Storm forced Saddam to admit the existence of the program and destroy or surrender components of the program. In the wake of Desert Storm, Iraq took steps to conceal key elements of its program and to preserve what it could of the professional capabilities of its nuclear scientific community.
If you want some more background on how American politicians viewed Saddam, check out the following link with a written statement by Senator John Kyl refuting Senator Ted Kennedy's accusations last year.

http://www.cfr.org/pub6861/helen_fes..._fantasies.php

Dude, can you read? It state's the poll dates right in the link. All you have to do is move your cursor over the hyperlink (the web address that is underlined) and click. Two weeks old. Very current information.

As far as your hypothetical, it's a strawman. Have fun knocking down strawmen. Pretty tough to do. The fact that Saddam didn't possess WMDs (he did have WMD programs) wasn't known at the time. Also, Saddam clearly had links to terrorism, although I don't recall strong ties with AQ being argued by the administration.

rotorooter

Yes, I do get my news from NYTimes, WashingtonPost, CNN, MSNBC and other standard sources.

I don't get my news from sources that cater to niche market , sources such as Fox News channel, Washington Times, Rush Limbaugh etc.


Could you post a link from a neutral source ( not a right wing propoganda source) which says French intelligence belived that Iraq had WMD?


Refer to Blix interview a few days before the war. Blix was the UN chief wepons inspector, any UN action on iraq could only be taken after his findings/recommendation. He said no.



He did not obsstruct inspection for 10 years. Inspectors were only kicked out in 1998 after Iraqis found out that many of the "inspectors" were CIA agents.

Does the name Scott Ritter, Dulefer, David Kay etc. ring a bell?

Between 1998 to 2002 UN ( read US/UK) did not make any effort to send the inspectors back.

I don't look bother to look at substandard sources. I don't trust sub-standard sources which seem to cater to niche market.


I have to disagree with you there. US always had much more extensive links with terrorists that Iraqis ever had.

Just to jog your memory, Alqueda/Taleban etc. were CIA's creation to fight the Russians.

US was supporting these terrorists as long as they were killing the Russians.

Basis for war was WMD, and Alqaeda connection, I agree it is purely academic to argue at this point, but I don't think majority of people would have approved attacking iraq.

You are entitled to your opinion though, as I am to mine.

rotorooter

( I guess you are too strong! )


The ex-CIA guy I was talking about, is not David Kay. Try digging up
Bill Moyers NOW archive on PBS for that. This guy was a mid level CIA official who used to handle intelligence pertaining to Iraq and on NOW he said that Administration souped up the evidence.

Here is link you might want to look at. I wasn't even refering to this one!
BTW could you explain why did Bush award country highest honor Congressional medal to George Tenent?

Could it be that he was bribing him to not write a memoir/book?

Afterall given the "CIA's failure" he did not deserve the country highest award, did he?

Please get standard sources, I don't pay attention to substandard sources. My sources are NYTimes and London Times, your source is QANDO !!!

Blix said before the war that he didn't think Iraq had WMD and US would be wrong to attack Iraq.

David Kay is not my man. He was Bush Administration man whom Bush had hired as wepons inspector. You know of course what David Kay said aftewards when he resigned from the post.

My man the ex-CIA guy who interviewed witth Bill Moyers on his NOW show. This is the guy who was dealing with intelligence on Iraq.

You know why he kicked out the inspectors in 1998? Because he found out that Scott Ritter, David Kay, and Dulfer all worked for CIA, that is why.
No I wouldn't trust Saddam but I would have to trust the neutral UN inspectors and according to them, most of the "WMD" and programs were destroyed long time back. By 1998, an estimated 95% of it was destroyed.

Let me just quote from the CIA report you have posted:


Aggressive UN inspections after Desert Storm forced Saddam to admit the existence of the program and destroy or surrender components of the program.


Yes I can read, I just don't bother to click on sub-standard news sources.

Yes at this stage it is moot point.
What is important is Americans are now begining to see the light and majority of them (over 60%) now say Iraq war was not worth it.

You know that is not true. Cheney repeatedly made allegation about Saddam - AQ link, a fact refuted by CIA's memo leaked to ABC news.
I am sure you are aware of that.

Here is Cheney:

BTW the trailers had nothing to do with WMD.

Leader

LOL

Proof isn't coming is it.

The telegraph will have to do:

Since I don't have all day to go searching for 2 year old news articles, that will have to do.

[quote]Refer to Blix interview a few days before the war. Blix was the UN chief wepons inspector, any UN action on iraq could only be taken after his findings/recommendation. He said no.

I'm not referring to anything. You go get it. Beside we did take UN action. We just acted.

You are wrong.