No WMD found and Bush ratings at new low.

[Almaci]

Hero here ya go again.
While Rumsfeld was shaking Saddam´s hand I was one of the people begging for that madman´s emoval, when Reagan stopped an inquiry to the Halabja attacks I protested the aid he got from the West, dont come here and yet again act like im some ort of Saddam loving terrorist sympathising commie bastard.

And I love kitties, cant imagine my life witouth cats.

[Hero]

No, I meant Saddam with cats. That's gotta be the epitome of oxymoron. I dunno though...

So what's your whole tirade, saying Saddam complied fully and functionally and ohmygoshisnthethemostdarlingthing if you know he needs to go out? Why allow him to comply half-assed with the UN and defend his half-assedness on a forum if you begging for the madman's removal?

[Almaci]

To build on my old claim that this war was gonna happen no matter what, that the war had been decided upon regardles of what was really going on with Iraq.

[Calliander]

Hey Almaci, who would you have voted for? Arnold?

[haohmaru]

To build on my old claim that this war was gonna happen no matter what, that the war had been decided upon regardles of what was really going on with Iraq.

Er, what?

So, we had a predetermined course and we were going to war "regardless of what was really going on with Iraq" - which seems to infer that if Saddam was overthrown and the Iraqi people created a new democracy, in the interim, we still would've gone to war.

Sorry, Big Kahuna, that doesn't float the boat.

We went to war for reasons that have been exhausted throughout this thread, ad nauesum in fact, and it just doesn't fit into your very simplistic definition. There were many factors that led to the war and I don't believe it was predetermined, ordained from above, or an indeterminable fate.

GWB clouds the bigger issue(s) for you, unfortunately.

[Calliander]

So, we had a predetermined course and we were going to war "regardless of what was really going on with Iraq" - which seems to infer that if Saddam was overthrown and the Iraqi people created a new democracy, in the interim, we still would've gone to war.

Were this a month or so before the war and Almaci were saying this stuff, I would definitely disagree with him.

Now, however, it's looking like he's right on this issue. I mean, Wesley Clark has openly accused the Administration of having a five-year plan of several countries to invade pre-emptively before 9/11 happened.

So, while the answer to your question is no, I agree with this statement of us going in there no matter what. Your situation was highly unlikely and I believe that the statement was meant in that "no matter what" means without sanction and "when" Hussein refuses to comply. Almaci can correct me if he meant your "even if..." statement.

We went to war for reasons that have been exhausted throughout this thread, ad nauesum in fact, and it just doesn't fit into your very simplistic definition. There were many factors that led to the war and I don't believe it was predetermined, ordained from above, or an indeterminable fate.

The problem, now, is that that those reasons we went to war are being proven outright wrong in most cases. It's been like seven months with no hope in the future of finding any WMDs. It's more likely now that the scientists and inspectors were telling the truth about the weapons being destroyed and Saddam still thought he had them. The links to Al-Qaeda were proven wrong somewhere down the line, which I'm sure Almaci has the links for and I remember reading on CNN and etc. And now the Administration is being lambasted by Democrats because of the false information we gave to the U.N. as proof.

I think the main cause which emerged - freeing the Iraqi people - is a great and noble one. However, that was clearly not our first intention. I don't believe that for one minute. From what I'm seeing now, I'm more inclined to believe that we DO have a plan; this war and any others Bush might get us into are predetermined, ordained from above, or an indeterminable fate.

But while I'm willing to listen to facts to the contrary, it seems to me that most Americans are no longer willing to do that. I invite anyone to toss out facts to change my opinion, but with news stories, Cheney and Rummy getting beaten down on news programs, Blair taking it in the gut, and all of this other stuff, other Americans - the ones who will vote, at least - don't want to hear that stuff. I can't even bring up the possibility of anything to the contrary around the people I work with, my family, etc.

So it's very easy for someone to side with Almaci now, and of course he's going to feel vindicated.

[Almaci]

I would have voted against a recall.
Gray Davis is screwing up yah but he hasnt done anything downright illegal, he is just doing a crappy job and now you have a situation where a minority of people(1.5 million people, mostly people who didnt even vote in the elections that put Davis there to begin with) set forth a process that nulified the entire election.
Democracy should have run its course.

[haohmaru]

Were this a month or so before the war and Almaci were saying this stuff, I would definitely disagree with him.

Now, however, it's looking like he's right on this issue. I mean, Wesley Clark has openly accused the Administration of having a five-year plan of several countries to invade pre-emptively before 9/11 happened.

So, while the answer to your question is no, I agree with this statement of us going in there no matter what. Your situation was highly unlikely and I believe that the statement was meant in that "no matter what" means without sanction and "when" Hussein refuses to comply. Almaci can correct me if he meant your "even if..." statement.

Sorry, but Senor Clark is now a Presidential competitor and I'll take anything he says with a grain of salt. See: http://edition.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLIT...clark.iraq.ap/

Make that: I'll take anything he says with a LARGE grain of salt. Thanks.

Almaci should say what he means and say it correctly in first place. And if you have a crystal ball that can predict the future, then more power to you. I think the invasion could have been avoided - feel free to disagree with me.

The problem, now, is that that those reasons we went to war are being proven outright wrong in most cases. It's been like seven months with no hope in the future of finding any WMDs. It's more likely now that the scientists and inspectors were telling the truth about the weapons being destroyed and Saddam still thought he had them. The links to Al-Qaeda were proven wrong somewhere down the line, which I'm sure Almaci has the links for and I remember reading on CNN and etc. And now the Administration is being lambasted by Democrats because of the false information we gave to the U.N. as proof.

I think the main cause which emerged - freeing the Iraqi people - is a great and noble one. However, that was clearly not our first intention. I don't believe that for one minute. From what I'm seeing now, I'm more inclined to believe that we DO have a plan; this war and any others Bush might get us into are predetermined, ordained from above, or an indeterminable fate.

But while I'm willing to listen to facts to the contrary, it seems to me that most Americans are no longer willing to do that. I invite anyone to toss out facts to change my opinion, but with news stories, Cheney and Rummy getting beaten down on news programs, Blair taking it in the gut, and all of this other stuff, other Americans - the ones who will vote, at least - don't want to hear that stuff. I can't even bring up the possibility of anything to the contrary around the people I work with, my family, etc.

So it's very easy for someone to side with Almaci now, and of course he's going to feel vindicated.

The issue that you're missing here is that WMD weren't the primary reason for the war - they never were. This is the mass media shoving it down our proverbial throats and "Bush hunters" making it the entire cause for the war instead of what the real issues were - 1441, Hussein's posturing and refusal to cooperate, an ultimatum, and subsequent war. Did Bush, Powell, & Co. emphasize WMD's or their development? Yes, they did. Did Congress vote on the War? Yes, they did. Did Hussein *really* do everything he could to cooperate? Hell, no. This is the "big bad U.S." stigma that's so easily applied to what many consider to be the big bully of the planet - and rightly so. The richest countries have ALWAYS been bullies throughout history and I happen to think that the U.S. is among the most docile of those bullies when history is brought into context.

Contingency plans are in place for MANY countries. You don't think we have a plan of war for China? Russia? North Korea? OF COURSE we do. Clark's accusation is, once again, playing the media on the bovine masses who HAVE NO IDEA that we have such plans for dozens of countries. It's the right thing to do (prevent defense) and I'd rather have us be prepared for such things than to have no such plans.

So, Iraq was on that list? So what? To me, that's just further word manipulation for a presidential hopeful that CERTAINLY knows better. :P

[Almaci]

Oh boohoo, the big bad liberal press isnt giing the administration any breaks and muddles their clear message, boohoo.
Cry me a fucking river dude.
Iff anything they have gotten a free ride, just check my posts from early this year when I showed it took US media a full week to report on fake documents being used, Bush nuclear claims being discredited even BEFORE he used it at his state of the union etcetera etcetera.
The US media stayed silent and didnt say shit until the Internet and Europe based media buzz became too big to ignore.

And yes WMD WHERE the focus and the entire focal point of this war, Blair said it and Bush said it.

Bush gave Iraq an ultimatum, he said disarm now(talking about weapons Iraq was banned from having) or we will disarm you.
Blair said the same, come forward with youre WMD and destroy them and the war will not take place.
Iraq maintained they didnt have banned weapons while both Bush and Blair insisted they did, they backed up their claims with fake documents and statements wich often were discredited BEFORE they even made em.

This WAS about WMD and yes the warmongers did get a free ride, both from the US press as well as from US congress.

[haohmaru]

I'm not "crying" dude - it's not that important to me.

No, we'll have to agree to disagree on the WMD being the "entire focal point of the war" - they weren't. 1441 was just as big an issue, and if it wasn't, why bother with the UN *in the first place*? The UN found Saddam "not cooperative", "not complying", and "unsatisfactory" - that's a major part of this issue, like it or lump it.

Bush gave Iraq an ultimatum all right, after Saddam continued to dick around with weapons inspectors, UN mandates, and the pleas of may countries to comply. Ignoring that is irresponsible and unfair on your part. Not to mention HUGELY biased.

Bush and Blair "warmongers" - ROTFL

Funny how you ignore the warmongering Congress (the U.S. cannot go to war without their seal of approval) and the warmongering Parliament.
Your argument fails on *that point alone*. If you're telling me that Bush is smart enough to dupe the entire U.S. Congress, then he's a lot smarter than anyone ever gave him credit for and I have a bridge in Newark NJ that I'd like to sell you. =D

You're too much.