Art, I just want to say I agree with most of your points.  There are a few things that I would like to point out.

First:

Russia was at that time (and I still feel is now somewhat) a greater threat than the Taliban. Again I must emphasize somewhat here.  Neither the Taliban nor Al-quaida are friends with Russia.  We, the U.S. (as well as Canada), are just the great enemy to them than Russia is (even though they don't like Russia either).  That's how the U.S. looked at it then.  Obviously, the threat of the Taliban was seen as minimal compared to the Russian threat. 

Each Nation is concerned about its OWN best interest than its allies. 

Russia is only hiding behind a facadical veil of democracy just like the U.S. has an appearance of democracy and to a lessor extent Canada.  Only Russia's is more of a facade. 

Russia and China are fighting against the West (each individual country in the West is trying to make a name for themself) and all of them are trying to stay relevant.  Throw in there Arab nationalism and Islam.

I totally agree about the two party system here.  Its laughable (except no ones laughing) how eventually both parties do the same exact thing.  Each party is more concerned about who just gave them that big pay out and less concerned about the people they supposedly represent.

I was thinking that this last election would cause a third party to break out but it didn't.  Its possible that this next election just might.  I'm not sure if the two party system will collaspe.  Both parties have ensured that it would be very difficult for a third party to come to power.

My other beef with the current U.S. system is that you need money (and lots of it) to run for any state or national office.

NAFTA was a response to the formation of the EU or so we were told that.  I wish NAFTA was just between Canada and the U.S. but how could we ignore the poorer country south of us (how dare we) and it was pushed through because it was helping those lessor poorer countries as well.  Kind of sounds like what's going on now with the whole climate bill.  This is how a lot of people justify their greedy ways.  They're making bundle trying to help those poorer people and those people could get some of that bundle (not really) if certain people werent standing in their way.

I'm not against helping the poor.  There are a lot of poor nation whose greedy government never allows the aide to get to the people who truly need it.  Two examples of this is Zimbabwe with Mugeby and Palestine with what Arafat and the current regime are doing. Helping the poor is very noble (I do it very often) yet when governments try to it always doesn't filter down to the actual people who need it.  It seems like everyone has to take their piece of the pie.

There is a certain speaker of the house who has such a fake smile.  This individual at around 2003 had a value of total assets of 92 million.  Now, supposedly she's only worth ~25 million, which I highly doubt. This individual feels that she needs to help the poor.  Well why doesn't she use her own money. I should have a say where my money goes.  Why wasn't anyone helping the U.S. during the industrial revolution?

I am all about helping the poor but when ever bureaucrates get involved the money in its whole will never get into the intended hands.

Oh, you mean the one that runs through  Kazakhstan that just opened LINK or here.

[quote]But, don't listen to me. I'm a no-nothing idiot. Go read about it here, and if you don't like what you read here go do your own research on it.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/2001/hydrocarbons.htm[/quote]

Don't be so hard on yourself, you're not a no-nothing. Just maybe guilty of not looking at the date of the links you provide. Thanks for the (old) history lesson though. Current links are provided above for you. Sorry you had to write so much about nothing (relevant anyway).

It was sarcasm. I should have put up something to spell it out. The fact is there are many political parties in the US, Green, Reform, Nazi, etc. liberal and conservative. They just don't resonate with the people. You can't just create a party and expect it to be a success.

That is actually an urban myth.  But it suits the purpose of some, so it has gained traction.  Still, like the CIA blowing up the WTC, Iraq for Oil, and other myths, nothing said by anyone up to and including God is going to change any minds on that one.

Arty and I disagree on this (NAFTA).  I am all in favor of it, even with Mexico, and think that extending it to the rest of Central America (Mexico kind of straddles north and central) is a good idea.  For 2 reasons mainly.  Tarrifs have been shown to do more harm than good (and very little good at that). 

And 2, as The Peoples noted, Mexico is not exactly a hot bed of 1st world luxury.  But we need to work with them (more so than perhaps any other nation on earth) to get them closer to us economically.  And we will not do that by holding them down (without NAFTA).  Yes, their trucks are a nightmare, the corruption is on par with Chicago, and their laws are almost 3rd world.  But most of that stems from the lack of a strong middle class.  But we have to work with them to bring them up, and NAFTA was a good first step.

We should not be "giving" them a bunch of money.  But paying them for goods and services?  How else to nurture a middle class.  We need a strong and friendly nation on our southern border as much as we need one on our northern border.  It is going to take time and a lot more cooperation (note again that I am not saying MONEY) to get them there, but if we can, then we not only get a lot of answers to our national security, we also alleviate other problems - like the Illegal immigration.

We need CAFTA and more work on NAFTA.  We dont need protectionist that scream "I have mine, so now government has to make sure I keep it". 

You never did accept or acknowledge that George Bush and his allies gave many, many reasons for the invasion and that the WMD story was not a lie but an error (as was also revealed shortly after the war) and was necessary only to convince the UN, not to find justification for the necessity of the invasion.

You know, there are many good arguments against the invasion, before the invasion and with hindsight; but ignorance of the other reasons given and the LIE that George Bush magically knew about the truth and, in contrast to everybody else who thought that Saddam had WMDs, "lied" about same are NOT good arguments. Using those "arguments" only shows your ignorance.

There are not enough nutters in congress, apparently.

Actually you repeat yourself.

Now that I come to think of it, I think I would have supported Cindy Sheehan's candidacy. One the one hand she did betray her son's memory but on the other hand she and the crazy uncle could have formed a wonderful caucus.

My favorite one is how Bush was the biggest moron and/or idiot to become President yet somehow he was the smartest one to fool the whole world into going to war. I'm not sure how someone can be that stupid and smart at the same time.

She has an uncle in congress?  No matter, there are enough idiots for her to make a nice caucus with if she ever does get elected.

The key difference between Sheehan and pelosi - one is too stupid to lie.  The other is just is just stupid and a liar. 

Yes, that's about it.

The fact is that all western secret services believed in those WMDs, not just the CIA. If anything, the stupid Bush fell for it, just like Arty did. (Maybe Arty lied to us about the WMDs? He claimed he "believed" the story but that Bush "lied" about it. If Bush's belief in the story makes him a liar, why is Arty not a liar too?)

I wrote about the issue here: https://forums.joeuser.com/359722

I quoted an article:

Saddam Hussein believed Iran was a significant threat to Iraq and left open the possibility that he had weapons of mass destruction rather than appear vulnerable, according to declassified FBI documents on interrogations of the former Iraqi leader.

"Hussein believed that Iraq could not appear weak to its enemies, especially Iran," FBI special agent George Piro wrote on notes of a conversation with Saddam in June 2004 about weapons of mass destruction.

Apparently Saddam's lie became Bush's lie when Bush believed it.

And then Bush's "lie" didn't become Arty's lie when Arty believed it.

No. "Crazy uncle" is a name for Ron Paul.

Leauki, the difference is that Bush (or at least his handlers literally knew better) there's a mountain of documented cases in which analysts in the CIA sent out reports stating unequivocally that there were no WMD's, no threat, no AQ/911 connection.

You know what happened? To stifle the actual intel, Rumsfeld, Feith and Wolfowitz (with Cheney's blessing) opened the "office of special plans" specifically to deal with Iraq intel-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Special_Plans

Long story short, whenever a report came out saying "Iraq has no WMD's and poses no threat" It was sent back with explicit instructions to re-write it or consider getting a new job. So, the first casualty became the truth. And as with all things in life, the proof is in the pudding. All the bluster about the immediate threat Iraq posed turned out to be a pack of lies, deliberately propagated as the American people, I highly doubt, would have been okay with launching a pre-emptive invasion of a foreign nation lasting longer than your involvement in WW2, or Vietnam over a few technicalities. The war was sold to the American people on the basis that he was a threat who was developing WMD's. Both of those assertions turned out to be lies!

Tee-hee! Nitro, the links you posted illustrate your ignorance about what is going on in the region. The opening of the pipeline between Kazakhstan and China is actually a major blow to U.S interests, BUT it doesn't even begin to address the purpose I stated earlier. That purpose is to run natural gas (not oil) from the Caspian basin, bypassing Russia to ports and major transit points that are controlled by or reliably accessible to U.S and European oil companies.

Arty, In 2008 I have personally been a few miles from the place where Al-Qaeda were stationed in Iraq before 2003. I have PERSONALLY heard stories, from locals, about the battle between the Peshmerga (with American support) and the Al-Qaeda terrorists in 2003.

So PLEASE, for the sake of my sanity, PLEASE stop telling me that there was no Al-Qaeda connection.

And I don't doubt that the CIA routinely rejected evidence against their conclusion, just as you routinely dismiss and ignore evidence that shows that your conclusions are wrong.

The difference is that the CIA also had strong reasons to believe in their theory, while your theory that there was no Al-Qaeda connection is simply based on your opinion that there was no Al-Qaeda connection.

The fact is that Saddam allowed Al-Qaeda to be based in Iraq and didn't act against them. How do you think Al-Qaeda got supplies in Iraq? From Iran? (It's possible but unlikely.) From Syria? (The base was at the far side of Iraq, at the Iranian border.)

Yes, because such info contradicted what everybody (thought they) knew about Iraq.

There are always people who doubt established facts. Sometimes they are right. More often they are stupid loonies.

I am sure the CIA routinely reject eyewitness reports of alien abductions in their quest to find foreign spies in the US. That doesn't mean that they lie to us when they claim that there are spies on US territory.

And again you are ignoring all the other reasons given for the invasion.

But even ignoring those, and even assuming that the "dumbest president ever" (according to top Google hits anyway) managed to "lie" about something everybody else believed was true (making him the only person who was not deceived), even then Iraq was certainly a threat.

Any government that supports terrorists is a threat to the US. The fact that YOU simply don't acknowledge that Saddam Hussein had ties to terrorists (despite the fact that everybody in the Middle-East knows this since he proudly advertised the fact), doesn't mean that Saddam and his connections were not a threat.

But if you want to insist that your case against the invasion are your ignorance of Saddam's ties to terrorists, your ignorance of the many reasons given outside the WMD issue, and your refusal to believe that "the dumbest president ever" could have possibly fallen for the same faulty intelligence as everybody else, then I cannot help you.

I can only tell you so often what I know and what I saw with my own eyes. But at the very least you could learn that telling me that things I have seen with my own eyes don't exist is a ridiculous way to win an argument.

(Heck, a few years ago I already gave you a link to an article with pictures by someone who was at the very place where Al-Qaeda were based in Iraq. If I had had more time when I was in the neighbourhood I would have seen the very place too.)

I think most do.  For some unreasonable reason, those that disagree with Bush on Iraq, instead of being clear and concise on the reasons (and should we say honest?), try to lump everything they can think of to discredit him, even going so far as to lie about it.  Honest disagreements of Bush policy exist, but unfortunately are hard to find.

The irony is they cannot even see their own silliness.  Of course Bush is dumb as a stump, but of course he has the intelligence of a machiavellian Prince!  It all goes back to my previous statement.  if they were honest, they would state their beliefs - right or wrong - and stick with them instead of trying to portray Bush as almost god like in his manipulation of them.  Perhaps that is why they throw reason out the window?  They feel used by Bush, and now they are mad.  So like any mad animal, they strike out in all directions, not realizing that a reasoned response would be more effective.  And more believable.

Leauki, I'm actually not disputing that AQ were in Iraq prior to the invasion. But if their presence is justification for invasion then we should have invaded Pakistan, Yemen, Sudan, and a whole host of other countries. Allow me to explain:

What was the size of AQ in Iraq prior to the invasion, and where were they located? Did they have camps of thousands of fighters being supplied and armed by the Iraqi government? Were they located in the middle of major cities?

No, they weren't. They were located largely on the periphery of the country in areas that most Iraqi forces didn't go, had no official connection with the Iraqi government or Saddam, and in comparison to most of their other sites in other countries they were running a relatively small time operation that was bourne more out of opportunity than anything else.

What was the opportunity? Various operations carried out by the U.S and Allies to keep the Iraqi army off the backs of the Kurds to the north. In fact, the success of these campaigns was one of the main reasons that folks like wolfowitz, feith and rumsfeld believed overwhelmingly that Iraq as a whole could be dealt with the same way (only a small commitment of men and material needed)

Operations provide comfort 1 and 2, operation northern watch and operation desert strike succeeded perfectly in creating a relative safe haven in which the Kurds could operate without having to worry daily about the republican guard crashing down their doors. While from time to time Iraqi forces did come north and intervene, by the mid to late 90's these operations created an environment wherein the Iraqi army was largely absent. From time to time they would launch incursions to the north but always of limited scope and duration. This created a relative power vacuum, in which a group like AQ could indeed set up a little safe-house.

What -isn't- in dispute are the numbers. Prior to the invasion the size and scope of AQ in Iraq was extremely limited- they did not have a national presence, and there's no evidence that there was any corroboration or cooperation between AQ and Saddam's government.

After the invasion, however AQ in Iraq exploded, establishing a presence in virtually every major city.

Dr Guy

I never said either of the above. While I think he was an absolutely terrible president, I think a huge part of his actions were determined on the advice of his co-horts, folks like Cheney and Wolfowitz.

Remember, of Bush's inner circle, the only person who was against invading Iraq was Powell (the only experienced vet in the group)

Bush was terribly malleable to those whom he listened, so much so that at one point he had to pull Cheney aside and tell him not to call the shots in meetings.... something Cheney became accustomed to.

Bush's personality type of "going with the smart guys answer" was illustrated by his inability to grab the bulls by the horn and take charge-

1) 9/11- when informed that the nation was under attack, Bush sat there dumbfounded for several minutes. There was no smart guy present to tell him what to do. It wasn't until an aide suggested they leave that he did anything. Now, by all means he can be forgiven in his actions with the fact that this obviously would have been a massive shock -however- this was one instance in which he was placed square in the driver's seat and didn't do anything.

2) Hurricane Katrina- when briefed on the impending doom, Bush was again sans a smart guy in the room. Again, he was placed square in the driver's seat and again, he did nothing. The night before when he was fully briefed that all hell was about to break loose, he waited until the briefing was over and then mumbled "all necesary actions are being taken". Then he went to bed.

3) The financial crisis- for a supposedly staunch conservative, Bush did the exact opposite in paving the way for hundreds of billions of dollars to be handed out, no strings attached. Basically, he was told by someone who he considered "a smart guy" that all hell was going to break loose and the only way to fix it is if he got hundreds of billions of dollars tomorrow. Bush, in staying with his personality type, immediately caved to the "smart guy" who was there to tell him what to do.