[quote]Originally posted by Chewbacca:
Most the past reasons to go to war have been debunked so there is no debate to have when one side ( pro-war) has nothing but a bunch of hot air. Besides the point I'm making isnt about the justification for war but the justification for a leader to say one thing and then do the opposite. BTW If the majority of people jump off a bridge, is it wise to follow along just because a majority is doing so? [/b]
<font color='white'> With the bed comment, you are saying that we should stay and do the nation building, correct? But that seems to go against your previous statements. Frankly I don't see how this was possible with out nation building. Was Bush's comment before or after the UN debacle? </font>

You forget the pre-war claims were along the lines of imminent threat to U.S. security, womd's were ready to launch in 45 minutes, etc. Try to ignore history to suit your position all you want but most the pre-war claims coalition leaders made have been de-bunked and are now known to be a bunch of hot air.

Where as the reasons not to invade hastily and unilaterally, or at least the ones I proffered before the war, still stand solid. Almost like the 20/20 of hindsight, but better. I think someone coined the term "hind-foresight" a while back to describe the amazing ability to draw conclusions of the consequences of the war actions before-hand rather than after.

I discredit your insinuation that I, as one of the pro-peace folks, would stoop to claiming any evidence of WMDs found in Iraq is planted without any factual evidence of this being so. Regardless, I'm willing to bet this supposed report due out in near future will not support the rhetoric used to scare people into supporting the war.

I am also mature enough to admit when I am wrong and if this report does indeed reveal a direct and imminent threat to U.S. security and WMDs ready to launch in 45 minutes, etc. then I will have no problem saying I was wrong. Too bad it seems this attitude isn't prevalent on all sides of this debate. ;)


So what previous statements are you referring too specifically? Obviously if I was against this war then I was against nation building in Iraq, duh. My position now is we made our bed so we should sleep in it. That means since we created the current situation in Iraq we should stick around until at least an Iraqi government, water, electricity and a decent police force is restored in the country as much as I want my family, friends, and fellow countrymen to return home from that shooting gallery now. Its called the philosophy of finishing what you started. This is a tough position for me to take considering the U.S. rate of 1/death 12/injured a day that has yet to noticeably decline.

What "U.N. debacle" are you referring too? And what does this "U.N. debacle" have to do with a leader doing what they said they would not do?

So what previous statements are you referring too specifically? Obviously if I was against this war then I was against nation building in Iraq, duh. My position now is we made our bed so we should sleep in it. That means since we created the current situation in Iraq we should stick around until at least an Iraqi government, water, electricity and a decent police force is restored in the country as much as I want my family, friends, and fellow countrymen to return home from that shooting gallery now. Its called the philosophy of finishing what you started. This is a tough position for me to take considering the U.S. rate of 1/death 12/injured a day that has yet to noticeably decline.

What "U.N. debacle" are you referring too? And what does this "U.N. debacle" have to do with a leader doing what they said they would not do? [/QB][/QUOTE]

<font color='white'> Upon reviewing the thread I see that I misinterpeted one of your posts, sorry (the bed comment). I will agree that tactics need to change, start using more SF personel too combat the guriella fighters. We have done it before successfully, and I believe we can do it again. What UN debacle? Hmm, were you asleep all last winter and spring? My point was, if Bush said "No nation building." before the mess with the UN (You know the whole French,German,Russian thing) perhaps it was assumed the UN was going to participate and they were going to handle the mess we are in now. It won't really surprise me if his comment was taken out of context. </font>

Sorry Iron Ranger I am not flame baiting you or anyone, but if you feel that way hit the little report post button and let a mod decide.

If you are not ignoring history then you either missed much of the pre-war rhetoric from coalition leaders or you have forgotten. Or maybe you still believe it all. Whatever the case its your position to have so I'll refrain from further comment.

Also my comment on admitting when wrong was directed at civic and political leadership on all sides of the debate, not directed at you in anyway, shape, or fashion. Hence my use of the words "all sides of the debate".

Any figures I have posted concerning casualties in Iraq have come from media reports, the one site I refer to uses at least two credible reports for each instance of civilian deaths and gives a min/max number to clarify discrepancies. I wont claim it is 100% accurate but its better than not counting at all. Last count was 6-8 thousand dead civilians and an untold amount injured. I have yet to find any other source of information to counter this range of numbers.

One of my myriad of reasons I opposed the war was civilian deaths and injury as well as military, I didn't toss any 50,000 figures around nor support any pre-estimates of that kind. I did quote some gulf war I figures for comparative purposes, but opinion differs on the accuracy of those. My take on the issue was and is that exact the number of civilian/military deaths is irrelevant to the fact that they happen and could/can be avoided. My stance is if you kill an innocent person it is usually unjustifiable no matter what the intentions. The best intentions pave the road to hell is how the old saying goes.

I am unclear how the international communities position against hasty war on Iraq justifies Bush going against his pre-election statement concerning nation building. I just don't see the connection.

Also the link you provided concerning factual evidence of WMDs pointed to an article about Japans use of them in in WW2. How does this relate or did you post the wrong link?

<font color='white'> I think its a bit naive too think they were against 'hasty war making'. They were against any action at all, imo.

So Bush said no nation building pre-presidency, that kind of adds a whole new dimintion to things. Of course that brings me back too my point of presidential policies changing. And brings you back your point of no need at all for nation building, and so on and so on. Here is how I see it. Bush went into the 2000 election's not expecting to go to war. Sept 11th happened, went to war in Afghanistan, for the sake of preventing more terror to the US we attacks Iraq with out UN support (Or at least, with out support of alot of big names.), thus is forced to 'nation build'. And so we are back too wether we should have attacked at all. My answer is yes, because evidence seems factual as of now. Yours is vice versa. Circular Disscuison anyone?

As for the link I posted, my point was, China found Japaness wmd's 60 years (!) after the Japaness were leaving the country. Iraq could be more of the same. </font>

Yeah we are better off to agree to disagree Iron Ranger lest we are caught forever (or at least until differing facts results in a change of either of our opinions) in a circular debate. I wonder if circular debates go around the other direction in the southern hemisphere like flushing toilets do?