We are the second largest population of the top 17 countries by GDP per capita. Haha, this is such a contrived statistic. What a silly argument. "Canada has a high per capita GDP, and its rank is even higher if you don't count th
The general WMD justification for the war is that Saddam (has/is making/is planning to make) WMD, and would give them to terrorists. The urgency of this threat is certainly affected by how advanced Saddam's WMD capabilities are. The underlying threat is still the same. Unless Saddam was prevented from acquiring WMD, or if he decided to stop trying to acquire WMD, or if he chose not to give WMD to terrorists, it was only a matter of time. </f
The claim was that weapons could be readied for use within 45 minutes. A quote repeated dozens of times in the build-up to war. Even if that claim was never made the case was made that they already had stockpiles they could deliver to terrorists at any time. Iraq may have been a "great and gathering threat" now but when making th
I find it amusing to see someone complain about how unfairly they are treated in one sentence and then hurl insults in the next.
Why can you use quotes to make your point but anyone who uses quotes to disagree with you is on the left and anti Bush? Because when you link to the article the quote came from it provides the context of the quote. <TABLE cellpadding=8 width="95%" align=center bgColor=#FFF394 class="mb-Body-Quo
Personally, I'm not bothered by a politician making a speech on an aircraft carrier. What are you refuting here? I am refuting the idea that international cooperation brings safety. Nazi Germany is the classic example of how pacifist diplomacy made a bad situation worse. I have put f
That weapons stockpiles existed and could be used at a moments notice. I don't recall anyone saying that Iraq's weapons were ready to be used at a moments notice. Bill Cl
I think the US would be about 5% lower relative to other nations if defense spending wasn't included. Do most of the nations on this list spend 15-20% of their GDP on their military?
that damed aircraft carrier Are you talking about the one John Kerry was on when he announced his candidacy? long term safety is better pursued through international coop
“The liberation of Iraq . . . removed an ally of al Qaeda.” I bet there was something important where those 3 dots are.
I'd say it would be a "significant" coalition if 50% or more of the cost was borne by other countries Would you consider the coalitions supporting the Korean War, Kosovo intervention, and Afghanistan invasion to be significant? I would definitely consider winning World War II to
“The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently soughtsignificant quantities of uranium from Africa.” Wouldn't this be an accurate representation of the views of intelligence officials at the time the statement was made?
Conservatives vs. Clinton was pretty close if not equal to the hysteria. Not really. What is the 1996 equivalent to Farenheit 9/11? The solution to points 1,4,7 would be a pledge for serious fiscal responsibility, which I would welcome. There has been a pledge to cut the deficit in half in 5 ye
a discount on tanks that aren't suited to any sort of deployment outside of grasslands/desert What sort of terrain were you expecting to deploy them to? The ocean? a prov
The obvious reason for not invading North Korea is China. You forgot that one element of the Bush doctrine is to attempt a peaceful solution. There were weapons inspectors in Iraq before the war. Bush's diplomatic stance with North Korea is complete, verifiable, and irreversible nuclear disarmnament. That is neither appeasement nor the equivalent of giving them a reactor.
Should have cost us 10% of what it did, both in lives and money. Are you talking about the initial invasion or the occupation? Germany, Russia, France. How many of those countries would need to be in the coalition to call it significant?
I don't expect Social Security to be around when I retire.
1. Overthrowing the Taliban. Bush had worldwide support, including permission from Pakistan to use their country. 2. Overthrowing Saddam. The occupation definitely should have gone better, but the initial invasion was very successful. 3. Securing the release of the hostages from the survelliance plane held in China.
Bush's lack of foreign policy experience was (appropriately) noted as a weakness during the 2000 campaign. Had he run as a challenger in a post-9/11 environment, I don't think he would have gotten the nomination, let alone been elected. Certainly foreign policy is a bigger issue now than four years ago, and Bush has gained experience since then. It would be intellectually dishonest though to imply that Bush got a free pass on foriegn policy in 2000.<BR
If WMD were found, would you support the war?
Ever since a few weeks after coalition forces marched into Iraq, people who were against the war before it began have put forward the argument that the war is not justified because of the lack of WMD. This has also been used by people who were in favor of the war (like John Kerry and John Edwards) to criticize the Bush administration. I have a question for
The unemployment rate hasn't been going up the past few months. An obvious measurable form is the new jobs being created.
One area where lefties continued to be discriminated against is military salutes. The traditional salute is done with the right hand, which discriminates against left-handed members of the military. However, proposals to allow a left-handed salute have been met with opposition. One general notes, "We have always saluted right-handed. Allowing a left-handed salute undermines the seriousness and respect of saluting." Pro-lefty activists
The social contract is foremost to protect the weak from barbarism Isn't an unborn child the weakest of the weak? religion did not invent morality. The social contrac
Bush did emphasize WMD alot, but an imminent threat of stockpiled WMDs isn't the main reason most Americans supported the war in Iraq.
JoeUser Forums