The Realist Perspective of International Relations

[giffy]

Both Saddaam and Bush have said many things which are not true. I don't trust either of them. Yes there was intel suggesting WMD's in Iraq, but it was not as conclusive as the admin. led us to beleive. Intel is not black or white, instead it can often be used to show both sides of an arguement. I just have a higher standard of evidence and planning then the neocons do.

As for Kosovo and Afgan. I don't really want to get into the merits of either of them. My point was simply that your caraterisation of liberals was overly simplistic. Both sides view forieng policy descions both princibly and poltically. I can cite examples of conservative taking the side of the underdog and liberals doing the oppisite. 

[VinnyMyCousin]

Both Saddaam and Bush have said many things which are not true. I don't trust either of them. Yes there was intel suggesting WMD's in Iraq, but it was not as conclusive as the admin. led us to beleive. Intel is not black or white, instead it can often be used to show both sides of an arguement. I just have a higher standard of evidence and planning then the neocons do.

Then to be fair, you should point out that "it was not as conclusive" as Clinton's admin. led us to believe either, being that 1) The intel was largely from the Clinton years and 2) Clinton and Co. came to the same conclusion, just never acted on it.

[giffy]

Both Saddaam and Bush have said many things which are not true. I don't trust either of them. Yes there was intel suggesting WMD's in Iraq, but it was not as conclusive as the admin. led us to beleive. Intel is not black or white, instead it can often be used to show both sides of an arguement. I just have a higher standard of evidence and planning then the neocons do.

Then to be fair, you should point out that "it was not as conclusive" as Clinton's admin. led us to believe either, being that 1) The intel was largely from the Clinton years and 2) Clinton and Co. came to the same conclusion, just never acted on it.

Right they never acted upon it. One could argue they never did becasue they new that it was not as conclusive as Bush led us to beleive. I ma not saying that we should have doen nothing. But to set it up as if the two choices were full out invasion or to do nothing is to create a false dichotomy.

[VinnyMyCousin]

Right they never acted upon it. One could argue they never did becasue they new that it was not as conclusive as Bush led us to beleive.

Let me rephrase. Clinton launched multiple strikes against Saddam. He did act b/c he believed, as the rest of his admin. did, that Saddam had or was actively pursuing WMD. He did wrestle with the idea of a Bush-style invasion. Following your logic, if Clinton didn't think the evidence was conclusive enough, then he 1) wouldn't have launched those strikes and more importantly 2) wouldn't have fully supported Bush's invasion in '03, both of which he did.

[vagrant]

Right they never acted upon it. One could argue they never did becasue they new that it was not as conclusive as Bush led us to beleive.

Let me rephrase. Clinton launched multiple strikes against Saddam. He did act b/c he believed, as the rest of his admin. did, that Saddam had or was actively pursuing WMD. He did wrestle with the idea of a Bush-style invasion. Following your logic, if Clinton didn't think the evidence was conclusive enough, then he 1) wouldn't have launched those strikes and more importantly 2) wouldn't have fully supported Bush's invasion in '03, both of which he did.

"Bush Lied".... Haven't you figured it out?  Its right there in the liberal talking point that the professors were all saying, so it must be true.  Go back to your hole and hide in your ignorance with all the other little people that dare to question the views of academia. 

[LaneSwerver]

Right they never acted upon it. One could argue they never did becasue they new that it was not as conclusive as Bush led us to beleive.

Let me rephrase. Clinton launched multiple strikes against Saddam. He did act b/c he believed, as the rest of his admin. did, that Saddam had or was actively pursuing WMD. He did wrestle with the idea of a Bush-style invasion. Following your logic, if Clinton didn't think the evidence was conclusive enough, then he 1) wouldn't have launched those strikes and more importantly 2) wouldn't have fully supported Bush's invasion in '03, both of which he did.

"Bush Lied".... Haven't you figured it out?  Its right there in the liberal talking point that the professors were all saying, so it must be true.  Go back to your hole and hide in your ignorance with all the other little people that dare to question the views of academia. 

Is that a Saddam spider-hole?

[lawbuddy]

Right they never acted upon it. One could argue they never did becasue they new that it was not as conclusive as Bush led us to beleive.

Let me rephrase. Clinton launched multiple strikes against Saddam. He did act b/c he believed, as the rest of his admin. did, that Saddam had or was actively pursuing WMD. He did wrestle with the idea of a Bush-style invasion. Following your logic, if Clinton didn't think the evidence was conclusive enough, then he 1) wouldn't have launched those strikes and more importantly 2) wouldn't have fully supported Bush's invasion in '03, both of which he did.

"Bush Lied".... Haven't you figured it out?  Its right there in the liberal talking point that the professors were all saying, so it must be true.  Go back to your hole and hide in your ignorance with all the other little people that dare to question the views of academia. 

Well, actually he did lie.  He is quoted as saying that there are WMD in Iraq, and then came back earlier this year and admitted there were none.  That counts as a lie in my mind... Maybe I'm wrong.

Was going into Iraq a bad decision?  Now that's a totally different issue.  I'm just saying he lied about that justification...

[VinnyMyCousin]

Right they never acted upon it. One could argue they never did becasue they new that it was not as conclusive as Bush led us to beleive.

Let me rephrase. Clinton launched multiple strikes against Saddam. He did act b/c he believed, as the rest of his admin. did, that Saddam had or was actively pursuing WMD. He did wrestle with the idea of a Bush-style invasion. Following your logic, if Clinton didn't think the evidence was conclusive enough, then he 1) wouldn't have launched those strikes and more importantly 2) wouldn't have fully supported Bush's invasion in '03, both of which he did.

"Bush Lied".... Haven't you figured it out?  Its right there in the liberal talking point that the professors were all saying, so it must be true.  Go back to your hole and hide in your ignorance with all the other little people that dare to question the views of academia. 

Lol! Insolent red-state plebians!

I know that politicians aren't the most trustworthy people in general but to imply that Bush and Saddam are equally untrustworthy boggles my mind.

[VinnyMyCousin]

Well, actually he did lie.  He is quoted as saying that there are WMD in Iraq, and then came back earlier this year and admitted there were none.  That counts as a lie in my mind...

So if you're on the phone with your mom on a Sunday night during the semester and you say you have to go to bed early to go to class the next day...and then come Monday morning, your roommate informs you that it's a holiday and that there are no classes, did you lie to your mom?

[vagrant]

Well, actually he did lie.  He is quoted as saying that there are WMD in Iraq, and then came back earlier this year and admitted there were none.  That counts as a lie in my mind...

So if you're on the phone with your mom on a Sunday night during the semester and you say you have to go to bed early to go to class the next day...and then come Monday morning, your roommate informs you that it's a holiday and that there are no classes, did you lie to your mom?

Of course you did!