My thoughts on the war...

[frat]

Again, enough with the conspiracy theories give me a viable alternative.

[frat]

I think this is the problem that the Democratic Party is having with the issue of Iraq. Oil, Michael Moore, moveon.org, Saudi Royal family?? Give me a break! If you have alternative, viable solutions, I'm all ears.

[M2]

Again, enough with the conspiracy theories give me a viable alternative.

uhh so if i cant think of an alternative than that means its ok to invade a country?

oh i see...

[frat]

You're going to have to learn how to do this if you want to be a successful lawyer. I've laid out a legitimate argument for why I think going to Iraq was a good decision. I'm asking you to tell me where you disagree with the conclusions that I have reached. It's a simple question, but very hard to answer when you're on the wrong side of an issue HA HA HA. Oh by the way, I got a 151 on the LSAT and my GPA is only like a 3.0, So much for numbers. LOL

[M2]

You're going to have to learn how to do this if you want to be a successful lawyer. I've laid out a legitimate argument for why I think going to Iraq was a good decision. I'm asking you to tell me where you disagree with the conclusions that I have reached. It's a simple question, but very hard to answer when you're on the wrong side of an issue HA HA HA. Oh by the way, I got a 151 on the LSAT and my GPA is only like a 3.0, So much for numbers. LOL

Thanks for telling me what I will have to learn how to do in order to become a successful lawyer. How could I have lived without this information???

no comment as to your lsat-logical ability remark

[frat]

I apologize, that was uncalled for.

[M2]

wow... i've never seen an apology on LSD... Now i actualy have to go back and think of something to say

[The ZAPINATOR]

I don't like the idea of war.  I know it's necessary in theory, because pacifism makes you a sitting target for people who know you're not willing to defend yourself.  That doesn't mean I relish the thought of it. 

In Iraq, I think it was based upon intelligence that was faulty.  I think Bush thought in good faith that Saddam was developing weapons of mass destruction, and that left unabated those weapons would fall into the hands of terrorists and people that hated America.  He made a tough call that may ultimately not have been the right one... but I don't know if there was a right call to make, because to do nothing when we're talking about a potential terrorist attack with WMD's is a sobering thought.  If 9/11 was bad, you've got to realize just how much more devastating that would be.

And I think Bush thought that, independently of WMD considerations, a free Iraq (in the long run, mind you... countries don't develop a heritage of freedom and Democracy overnight) would be more stable, and a boon to the instability of the middle east.  This objective will only be evaluatable in the context of history... will Iraq ultimately be free and gain stability, or will it devolve into Civil War?  Will it become a breeding ground for Terrorists, or will it prosper and be an example to other countries of the region?

I think it's too early to look unbiasedly at the ramifications of this war, and we'll only be able to see if the objective of peace and freedom is reached over the long haul.  I'm not a hawk, but I'm hopeful.  I do think Bush acted in good faith with the American people in going into Iraq, given the context of 9/11 and the nature of Saddam's regime.  But we'll just have to see with time whether this ends up being another Vietnam, of the beginning of something remarkable in the Middle East... and we don't have the perspective of history yet to shed light on that.  In the darkest days of the Civil War, people weren't sure what they were fighting for or whether it was worth it... I for one, with the perspective of history, am glad Abe Lincoln kept the faith.  I'm glad he refused to back down, and was willing to fight for a Union, with liberty and justice for all.  That, in my opinion, is a dream worth fighting for. 

ZAP

[nekko]

and his goal was directly related to oil

I hear this all the time and for those of you who believe in it can perhaps help me understand the argument. The mental hurdles that I have in my mind that make me not focus on this arguments are

A) How does invading Iraq better make the US or even just US oil companies better off v. the alternatives? By that I mean it's not like the oil companies were clamoring for war, quite the contrary they wanted an elmination of the sanctions. If it was all about getting good deals for oil companies wouldn't we have just cut a deal with Iraq? We certainly had more leverage than the French and they got a ton of oil deals (BTW when people make this argument I rarely hear about France's interest in no war in order to protect it's oil industry). Now we've invaded and dominate the country but it's not like the oil companies are now cranking oil out of Iraq, there's a lot of work that has to be done in order to make that a reality, work that they would not have to undertake if we had simply been amoral and just cut deals.

B) A realistic scenario of Iraq involved the Iraqi oilfields looking like Kuwait during the Gulf War. Do you think that thought had oil companies salivating at the idea of a U.S. invasion?

C) If oil was the motivation why did we do it against the strong objections of the Saudis who are the primary source of oil in the Middle East? The idea that it's all about oil and so we would be willing to piss off the biggest producer of oil is a chain of reasoning that I'm having difficulty following. As a sidenote for those who believe the Bush folks basically do Saudi Arabia's bidding how do they explain the Iraq war?

[Tobias Beecher]

I think we should pull all our troops out.