|
Member Advice Summary
|
The "I Was Wrong" W/O
by stockholder | Apr 10 '03
Could you have been wrong? Now that Iraqi people are dancing in the streets and kissing the coalition troops and ripping down that statues of Saddam Hussein.Return to opinion
|
|
|
|
|
Comment |
Sorted by
Date Written |
As I wrote in a recent comment. . . (Reply to this comment)
by thewasp
on one of colonialpara's reviews, I can now see a way to state that we have won the war in Iraq, but not that it was right.
Sincerely,
Jason
(thewasp)
|
Jan 07 '09
3:04 pm PST
|
|
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Have you heard the latest ??? (Reply to this comment)
by ginzo
3,000 ey???
I think we lost that much in the first four hours of the Normandy invasion.
Anyway,its terrorist insurgence doing the killing and they're not only killing us but just as many Iraqis as they can!!!
This will be resolved REAL SOON!!
Which by the way is better than another 20 years of middle-eastern terrorist killing us as they have for years!!
Long before the liberation began in Iraq
|
Nov 07 '04
7:20 pm PST
|
|
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Have you heard the latest ??? (Reply to this comment)
by thewasp
Hello, stockholder. We now HAVE lost over a thousand troops in Iraq. If we continue to lose them at the present rate we will have lost well over 3,000 by election day 2008. Are you going to admit you were wrong? If not, perhaps you could contribute to my "Destroy North Korea RIGHT NOW. . .Or Don't" write-off.
|
Nov 06 '04
1:30 pm PST
|
|
Re: Re: Re: Hi (Reply to this comment)
by ginzo
No, That's NOT what it says.
Yes, Its been all about oil TO OTHER NATIONS.
Read it again.
|
Nov 15 '03
7:32 am PST
|
|
Re: Re: Hi (Reply to this comment)
by proxam
You mean it's all been about oil?
|
Nov 14 '03
9:47 am PST
|
|
Re: Hi (Reply to this comment)
by ginzo
Fool.com -
The downfall of Saddam Hussein's regime will bring enormous changes to the Middle East. The price of oil will soon fall to $20 a barrel. Yasser Arafat has lost his big financial supporter in Hussein. The Saudis feared Hussein, but they now fear democracy even more.
The Saudis believe a democracy in Iraq could eventually lead to an overthrow of OPEC royalty throughout the Middle East. The United States installed a democracy in both Japan and Germany after World War II with excellent success. The net result was far greater economic prosperity and freedom in both countries. Japan and Germany are the number three and four trading partners of the U.S. behind Canada and Mexico. Change always brings investment opportunities.
The lack of coalition support for the U.S. to overthrow Hussein is easy to understand when you realize that few nations wanted the United States to have influence over one of the world's largest oil reserves. Simply replacing Hussein with a democratically elected leader will soon send shockwaves throughout OPEC and the Middle East.
The shift of power in Iraq could eventually rank Number Three in economic and political importance behind the fall of The Berlin Wall (the collapse of communism) and the economic power of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).
|
Nov 14 '03
8:34 am PST
|
|
Re: Hi (Reply to this comment)
by ginzo
Here's a great comment from 29th_candidate :
With regard to "WMD," It was Clinton's Iraqi ineptitude and failure of required action that caused the WMD threat in the first place (see below for related argument) and put the U.S. in a position where it allowed this whole Iraqi situation to be framed in terms of WMD, which, though a completely legitimate concern (but one that became virtually impossible to prove or disprove due to Hussein's own resolution-defying treachery which in turn, was enabled and encouraged by our bumbling Clinton's foolish tolerance of it), completely sidesteps the most fundamental issue:
As soon as Hussein breached his unconditional agreement to abide the black & white terms set forth in Resolution 687 (the ONLY thing that stood in between him and annihilation back in 1991,) he became a death statistic waiting to be actualized by the U.S., no if's and's or but's.
Just to clarify Jack; Resolution 687 didn't say, "if Hussein/Iraq breached some conditions of the resolution, but maintained others," or "if Hussein breached the resolution in a really big way," or "if Hussein breached the resolution, but then subsequently failed to make amends for his breaches," NO-- Hussein's/Iraq's continued viability, its preservation from obliteration by the U.S., was prefaced on its unconditional adherence to the terms of Resolution 687. No agreement; no ceasefire, PERIOD. ANY breach; large, small, subsequently-amended, whatever, by Hussein/Iraq of that Resolution's clearcut, unequivocal terms functionally revoked the ceasefire by operation of Contract law. The UN, by brokering and endorsing Resolution 687, provided ITS unconditional assent to our foreclosure on ANY Hussein breach, back in 1991. Consequently, the U.S. didn't require anything more than a single breach by Hussein/Iraq to "legalize" (to use your term Jack) its military removal of Hussein and his regime. Hussein violated multiple conditions of that agreement on multiples of occasions. BANG! End of story.
It was that pea-brained dimwit who preceded Bush to the Oval office who failed to take the decisive action Hussein's thumbing of his nose at us required. The lack of that decisive action and the competent handling required by Clinton is what ENABLED a WMD threat to develop in the FIRST PLACE; a consequence of the extended period of time (approx.1997-99) during which inspectors were only permitted to go where Hussein allowed them to go (breach) and under his own arbitrary conditions (breach) and times (breach) and the extended period during which Hussein blatantly expelled the inspectors, (breach) hence there were no inspectors at all to keep Hussein's WMD threat in check. Clinton's idiotic "look the other way" policy made it publicly and internationally seem as though the U.S. had foregone its unconditional (legal) right to take Hussein out, from the time of Hussein's first blatant violation until and beyond our country's long-awaited deliverance (by Bush) from Clinton's blithering foreign policy incompetence. There was no "statute of limitations" set forth in Resolution 687.
--29th
|
Nov 14 '03
8:32 am PST
|
|
Re: Hi, i'll be waiting (Reply to this comment)
by ginzo
New Report Discloses Dozens of Weapons of Mass Destruction Program Activities in Iraq
According to the Wall Street Journal a new report shows that Saddam Hussein had "dozens of WMD-related program activities and significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the United Nations during the inspections that began in late 2002." The Wall Street Journal makes note of the findings to rebut other media reports that say the latest inspections by U.S. inspector, David Kay have unearthed no new information in his short, three month search.
The revelations about Hussein's weapons of terror include a prison laboratory complex "possibly used in human testing of BW agents" in addition to strains of biological organisms that could be used as weapons, reports the Journal. The assignment has also served to spotlight Saddam's success in deceiving the United Nations and the world as to the state of his weapons programs.
The Wall Street Journal concludes by saying, "Even if no stockpiles are ever found, the Kay report provides ample proof of Saddam's WMD threat and how much safer the world is with him out of power."
|
Nov 14 '03
8:26 am PST
|
|
Hi (Reply to this comment)
by proxam
I'm thinking of hosting an I was right. W/O.
I wonder if it'd get more takers....
Drew ;)
|
Nov 13 '03
6:46 am PST
|
|
I never posted.... (Reply to this comment)
by Arthur.Rubin
so I've never been wrong . :-)
Seriously, I now believe that Saddam probably didn't have WMD, and he publicly stated that, but not for lack of trying; but he wanted everyone to believe he had. It's to our discredit that we fell for his second-order propaganda.
But it would not necessarily be correct to say that there wasn't credible evidence of WMD.
I decline comment on whether the battle (I still maintain this was a continuation of the 1991 Gulf War) was a good idea at this time. I thought it might have been justified about a month later. As there is no way to tell what the UN inspectors would have found, or how what they found would have been interpreted by unbiased observers, this cannot be disproved. I think it would have been considered established by any credible observer (not necessarily including Blix) that Itaq was trying to hide whether they had WMD.
|
Jul 05 '03
9:34 am PDT
|
|
I was never wrong (Reply to this comment)
by artbyjude
war continues to suck...nice try though. jude
|
Jun 19 '03
12:07 am PDT
|
|
Re: Re: Have you heard the latest ??? (Reply to this comment)
by AinsleyJo
I'm proud of our country!!!
However, I'm disappointed with what's been going on over there lately--but I feel that America played its part well in trying to bring about change!
These Shiites seem to have their own agenda, and it will be too bad if the newly-freed Iraqis succumb to their fears of the unknown by latching onto them and becoming anti-American.
The only thing that I can see that we did really wrong was not reading the writing on the wall clearly enough to be more prepared for the fact that dictatorship-addicted people would be going through withdrawal symptoms and be vulnerable to the very first feel-good drug that comes along--in this case, being the Shiites!
There are people who are addicted to substances such as drugs, alcohol, tobacco, etc., and they know that these things aren't good for them, but withdrawal is often too hard to keep up with unless there are other visible and tangible motivators that will make them keep trying.
In the case of Iraq, they're also a lot like the Israelites newly-freed from being slaves in Egypt--only to find themselves in the wilderness with some guy named Moses telling that that God told him that things were going to get better and that they were heading towards a land of milk and honey!
But the Israelites got on Moses' case and told him that, if they knew they'd be stuck in the wilderness, they would have stayed in Egypt and remained slaves.
Of course, that would have been a very bad choice, but these people were addicted to the familiar/known no matter how awful it was--especially, when they found out that they would have to make more than a small effort on their part to reach the land flowing with milk and honey.
These people need to be reminded by people they trust that they had been in a very miserable spot before--but it was up to them whether or not they would end up in a better spot or if they would take the easy way out now and suffer for it later!
Press On!!!
AJ :o)
|
May 20 '03
9:04 am PDT
|
|
I believe I name my sources at the bottom (Reply to this comment)
by ginzo
American forces have collected ``plenty of documentary evidence'' suggesting Saddam Hussein had an active program for weapons of mass destruction, the commander of U.S. Army troops in Iraq said Wednesday.
And officials were taking extra care in studying a truck suspected to be the first discovered biological-chemical mobile lab, especially in light of a number of instances when discoveries were announced that turned out not to materialize later.
Lt. Gen. William S. Wallace, commander of the Army's Fifth Corps, told a press conference the reason Saddam didn't use unconventional weapons against invading forces may be that these weapons were buried too well to retrieve before the fast coalition dash to Baghdad.
``We've collected evidence, much of it documentary, that suggests there was an active program'' for unconventional weapons, Wallace said.
``A lot of the information that we're getting is coming from lower-tier Iraqis who had some knowledge of the program but not full knowledge of the program,'' he told Pentagon reporters in a videoconference from the Iraqi capital. ``And it's just taking us a while to sort through all of that.''
He did not elaborate.
The Bush administration said destroying Iraq's suspected chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs was the main reason for the war. Despite weeks of searches of suspected sites, none has been reported found so far. And though Pentagon officials suggested before the war that some Iraqi units were armed with chemical weapons, none was found when those units were overrun.
Experts were still studying a truck suspected to be the first discovered biological-chemical mobile lab, said Wallace, who also was battle commander for the battle of Baghdad.
The suspect truck was handed over to U.S. forces in northern Iraq and was being moved to Baghdad for further investigation, a senior official said later, speaking on condition of anonymity.
On several occasions, troops have found substances they said tested positive as nerve agents or other chemical weapons materials, only to learn from more sophisticated testing that they were crop pesticides, explosives and so on.
The defense official said that he and others ``feel good'' about the prospect this time that they have found good evidence of an unconventional weapons program.
But they are being careful to cover all bases. He noted that many questions will be asked if it is announced as the evidence - including ``chain of custody'' information on who has handled the truck and whether it might have been tampered with.
Acknowledging that it was only one of his theories, Wallace said the reason such unconventional weapons never were used was that the Iraqis had to hide them from U.N. weapons inspectors up until the last days before the war.
``Inspectors only left Baghdad a few days before the start of the campaign,'' Wallace said. ``Because they were so clever in disguising them and burying them so deep, they themselves had a problem getting to it.''
Wallace said among work his men are doing now is joint police patrols and helping train Iraqis in police procedures.
He said there is still small arms fire in Baghdad and occasional criminal acts that he attributed partly to prisoners Saddam released before the war in an unusual pardon.
Looting also has been a problem in the power vacuum left by the fall of Saddam's regime. ``I'm not particularly concerned about security in Baghdad at all,'' other than that, he said, adding that there are no areas in the entire country that he is ``overly concerned about.''
05/07/03 13:09
The Associated Press
|
May 19 '03
10:49 am PDT
|
|
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Have you heard the latest ??? (Reply to this comment)
by stockholder
When are you going to admit you were wrong?
The day Hussain takes back Iraq!
The day we lose over a thousand troops in Iraq.
The day someone worse than Hussain is the leader of Iraq.
stockholder
|
May 18 '03
6:22 pm PDT
|
|
Re: Re: Re: Have you heard the latest ??? (Reply to this comment)
by stockholder
Arthur,
You are a smart guy - I like the way you think.. Maybe you and ginzo could run together?
Chuck
|
May 11 '03
4:24 pm PDT
|
|
Re: Re: Have you heard the latest ??? (Reply to this comment)
by Arthur.Rubin
ginzo commits copyright violation. Film at 11.
And -- for what it's worth, I've made my position clear in comments to other's reviews. I question the timing of the coalition attack (in that I think Blix might have found and acknowledged the fact that the Iraqis were thumbing their nose at the 1988 cease-fire agreement), but I have no doubt that Saddam had or was actively trying to construct NBC (Nuclear, Biological, Chemical) weapons. I still don't think he was dealing with bin Laden, but I consider it plausible that some of his lower-ranked relatives might deal with bin Laden in order to gain power within Iraq, which has the same effect as far as bin Laden's access to WMD, so....
|
May 10 '03
10:23 am PDT
|
|
Re: Re: Have you heard the latest ??? (Reply to this comment)
by ginzo
Heh,heh!
Try not to let the few nit-wits bother you.They're all over the internet !
|
May 08 '03
3:03 pm PDT
|
|
Re: Have you heard the latest ??? (Reply to this comment)
by stockholder
I promised I would be nice to all of my fellow epinions members. But after reading so many statements, I can't help but to wonder if ginzo is the only one with commonsense around here.
Is no one else proud of our country? Out of the 7 - million people that read, write and pass through, I believe he is the only spokesmen.
Ginzo for president.
stockholder
|
May 08 '03
1:41 pm PDT
|
|
Re: Re: Well... (Reply to this comment)
by ginzo
While we wait for the WMD to be dug up, here's something for youi to look over :
Papers found Saturday by journalists working for the Sunday Telegraph reveal that an al-Qaida envoy met with officials in Baghdad in March 1998, the newspaper reported.
The paper quoted an unidentified Western intelligence official as saying the find was ``sensational.''
The paper said the documents show that the purpose of the meeting was to establish a relationship between Baghdad and al-Qaida based on their mutual hatred of the United States and Saudi Arabia.
The meeting went so well that it was extended by a week and ended with arrangements being discussed for bin Laden to visit Baghdad, the newspaper said.
Journalists found a three-page file on bin Laden inside a folder lying in the rubble of one of the rooms of the intelligence headquarters, the paper said.
``Iraqi agents at some point clumsily attempted to mask out all references to bin Laden, using white correcting fluid,'' the newspaper reported. ``After carefully removing the dried fluid, however, the name is clearly legible three times in the documents.''
|
May 03 '03
11:44 am PDT
|
|
Re: Well... (Reply to this comment)
by stockholder
They started it! I don't want to be punitch!
|
May 02 '03
11:36 pm PDT
|
|
Well... (Reply to this comment)
by Penguinlady
Well, so much for thoughtful and civil discourse. I'm seeing as much knee-jerk name-calling here as in any cowboy bar on a Saturday night.
What ever happened to respect for differing opinions?
Margaret, disgusted
|
May 02 '03
8:17 pm PDT
|
|
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Who was wrong? (Reply to this comment)
by aeoluscmc
I don't hate George Bush and I hesitate to comment on these opinions sometimes because it feels as though people want to jump top those kinds of conclusions, i.e. I said that had "hesitations" and you leapt to "you hate George Bush"
I feel it's important to be having these discussions and writings, but I just think it's still possible to be torn/undecided and it worries me that these days any time I say something along the lines of I have worries or concerns, someone tries to say that I'm "unpatriotic" or that clearly, I "hate" Bush.
I don't hate Bush, I'm not trying to question his right to be president or if he's the right person to be president, I just feel as though that's moot. Further, I do think he is trying to do what he thinks is best, I just don't know if I agree with his decision (and really, I would think that even Bush would have some reservations, I remember when he was still Gov. Bush he talked about "not" believing in using our troops for "nation-building")
I do support the troops because they are American troops and lives, but I have to say that's part of the source for my reservations too. I have friends who are fighting and I worry about them and worry about what and why they're fighting this war.
As for the last part of your comment, that you're "not guilty unless you're caught," I do see that as a bit of a conundrum -- I feel as though it's a bit of a double standard in a couple of ways. I feel as though it's almost hypocritical for us as a nation to believe in "innocent until proven guilty" and then say that Saddam is guilty even if we can't find any WOMD. At the same time, yes, Saddam is not a nice guy and he's definitely on the list of people I think this world would be better without -- but as to that, Osama still out there, there's the N. Korean leader who I think is much crazier and who we *know* has WOMD, I guess I didn't completely understand the why Saddam and why right now in comparison -- I do believe that there was definitely evidence leading us to believe he might have had WOMD or was certainly trying to produce WOMD -- but without proof I feel as though it hurts our international credibility.
And yes, if it came to preserving our credibility versus preserving our way of life, I'd obviously choose the latter, I'm just not positive that was the particular choice presented.
Look, I'm sorry to write such a long comment. I'm not a very long-timer here or anything. I enjoy reading your write-offs and opinions even when I don't always agree just because I'm happy to see the issues you're raising being discussed rationally and intelligently. However, I just feel as though these days feelings are so tense that it almost degenerates to you're a "moron" if you feel this or you "hate" Bush and therefore can't be logical. I'm young, I've switched parties and beliefs and I'm really not very "set" in any of my views yet. I read this discussion and wanted to comment, I just don't want people to mistake my hesitations and fence-sitting as "hatred" or signs that I'm "unpatriotic."
|
May 01 '03
3:04 pm PDT
|
|
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Who was wrong? (Reply to this comment)
by stockholder
It does not matter if they are happy about us being there or not - we will be leaving some day and we will be leaving Hussein in the dust.
I believe you have a right to say anything you want! But just be honest about your reason for saying it! YOU HATE GEORGE BUSH.
I voted for Al Gore and I'm not a big time republican. But I hate terrorists and we have the right guy as president.
I don't think we need to find WOMD to prove Hussein is a filthy animal.. Plus even you will admit that he did have WOMD but they might be well hidden, sold, or destroyed
so what you are saying is - it is not a crime if you don't get caught!!!!
|
Apr 30 '03
8:41 pm PDT
|
|
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Who was wrong? (Reply to this comment)
by aeoluscmc
I have to disagree. While I'm proud of the USA in general, I do believe that if we stated we were going to go to war because of Iraq's possible WMD, then we have a duty to prove that they were there, otherwise, what makes us better than any other country that makes war just for war?
While I understand that war is a drastic step that people will have different opinions towards before, during and afterwards about, it concerns me that people who raise concerns about this war, or hesitations about George W, etc., are immediately branded as un-patriotic. I know people who have been sent over and I totally support the troops. However, even now that it's almost moot, I still don't know that going to war was the right thing to do. I don't believe this makes me un-patriotic, I remain proud of the US and of being an American, I just don't always agree with everything we've done.
Lastly, I have to say that part of my concern is that I see the news coverage now and I see not just the Iraqis celebrating the fall of Saddam, but I also hear them chanting things like "Death to America." They may be happy Saddam's no longer there, but that doesn't mean they're happy we're there either.
|
Apr 30 '03
5:50 pm PDT
|
|
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Who was wrong? (Reply to this comment)
by stockholder
Arthur,
I'm talking about the French's passive attitude when it comes to war! They will convict their own citizens before they are proven guilty but they won't fight another country that attempts to destroy their way of life - but come to think about it their way of life might not be worth fighting over.
I'm proud of the U.S.A and George W.
Non- patriot
You have proven you are an idiot - the reason we went to war was the weapons of mass destructions - but again it is not the job of the U.S.A or George W. to prove anything to you or the rest of the poontangs in this country or any other country. You are truly a numb nuts, why would you be sooo against a president that you would side with Hussein? You are obviously a spoiled little fart stain that has no clue what life could possibly be like in anything but luxury.
stockholder
|
Apr 29 '03
3:27 pm PDT
|
|
Re: Re: Re: Re: Who was wrong? (Reply to this comment)
by Arthur.Rubin
stockholder: That's not fair to the French. In their legal system, you're guilty until proven innocent -- unless you're a country, I suppose.
|
Apr 29 '03
5:49 am PDT
|
|
Re: Re: Re: Who was wrong? (Reply to this comment)
by stockholder
You don't get do you? I don't give a shit if Hussein had weapons of mass destruction or not- the biggest weapon of destruction is being an evil piece of crapola that is willing to steal millions from his people for his own wealth. I would be for the war just on the facts that he funds homicide bombers and allows his sons to rap innocent women. You have too much of the American attitude that we must prove everything and everyone is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. That's bullshit, if waited for that to happen we would be the French.
I’m glad we have a president with balls!! That will fight his hardest against terror and not wait for another smoking gun or for my children’s funeral, before he decided to fight.
No one needS to prove anything to YOU.
stockholder
|
Apr 28 '03
2:25 pm PDT
|
|
Re: Re: Re: Who was wrong? (Reply to this comment)
by ginzo
Right !! We all knew THAT was coming soon from the anti-war crowd. The US did it !! They planted the evidence.
Right !!
When do you plan on writing a review ???
|
Apr 28 '03
8:36 am PDT
|
|
Re: Who was wrong? (Reply to this comment)
by ginzo
A special forces reconnaissance team found 14 unmarked barrels, at least a dozen missiles and 150 gas masks at a site east of Baiji, 112 miles northwest of Baghdad, on Friday, ABC News said in a report on its Web site on Sunday.
A platoon of chemical weapons experts from the Army's 1-10 Cavalry was sent to the area and tests on one of the 55-gallon barrels were conducted on Saturday, it said.
"Lt. Valerie Phipps and her squad used three different methods to test liquid from one of the barrels. The preliminary tests showed it to be a mixture of three chemicals, including a nerve agent and blistering agent," ABC News said.
The United States said destroying Iraq's alleged chemical arms and other weapons of mass destruction was one of its main goals when it invaded Iraq last month. Iraq denied having such weapons.
|
Apr 27 '03
2:16 pm PDT
|
|
Re: nope (Reply to this comment)
by ginzo
Actually backy, I'd worry a lot LESS about a terrorist attack.
I think we sent a strong message as we did to Kahdafy
|
Apr 25 '03
7:56 am PDT
|
|
|
|
