KrustyKidd

You don't hold stock in what Bob Woodward says? Most of the left does so you intruque me for not following them but yet, wonder what you base your ideas on if you discount award winning historical writers who do mega research for their books.

Correct. Possible, however totally unlikely given the tolitarion regome that Saddam had personally built to stop such action. He was not a pushover like Cheauchescu or the Shah so figures and history of lesser police states do not hold here. The fact was, they did not period. And, they did not while there were UN resolutions in effect demanding that the regime fulfil their part of them. Hence, any speculative thought on whether or not they could, should or .... would is irrelevent. They certainly did have the authority to take whatver means were necessary to ensure Iraq complied with the UN resolutions against them. It took regime invasion and change to do it but voila! Iraq is now in complience! Oh, look, mercy me along with that action twenty five million people were unintentionally liberated. Sorry about that but shit happens. Anyhow, I take it that you have no answer to the following questions as you have for the third time refused to answer them. and .... Please answer as you are appearing to be afraid of doing so as it would devastate your position. In the meantime, try working with the quote feature as you tend to confuse matters by jumbling multi points you are answering into one large pargraph. That is what it was designed to avoid.

Yes. Allow a minority to take over the entire country then send in our children to fight a better entrenched and better organized group of Jihadists later.

According to Clark in 'Plan of Attack' it was march of 2002 when Bush first approached Rumsfeld to bring the battle plan for Iraq up to speed which was something like ten years outdated. We, the public were first allowed to see the actual plan when the focus changed from WMDs to 'Regime Change' in late 2002.

The Iraq gov't may have been choosen democratically but it has no authority over the country that it claims to rule. Most of Iraq is under the control on local militia groups which are not democratically elected. So I do not think it reasonable to say Iraq is a democracy. A more accurate statement is 'Iraq is an anarchy that has held elections'. In which 65% of the people participated in. The people have chosen the government they wish. Now, it is up to the government to be the one the people chose. If they suceed, that's democracy in action. If they fail, the same. It is what the people chose.

A democratic palastine elected Hamas. A democratic lebanon elected hizbolla. If is rediculous to assume that democracies will elect leaders friendly to the west. Exactly. And both places are unable to provide security to their poplulation yet, Black dog believes that Iraq, Lebannon and Palestine are not democracies.

If you recall, you asked me if I had any source to back me up. I provided three impeccable ones with a nuetral interest. You provide nothing to support that this was not the case. Actually I could be wrong. It was a great reason but obviously not the only one as there were so many good reasons for the Iraqi invasion that it is hard to put a finger on the best one. No, just showing how easy it is for the US to take out targets if they concentrate. You said So who is able to raise trouble and, in what way, without being the subject of military or political action from the US? Whipping a crowd into a chanting frenzy is not democracy. Glad to see you're done some actual research with a factual poster though. Do keep it up, I sense your 'new source' for your quotes is right more than you are.

Are you really unable to use the quote function? We have no idea of what you are replying to. Trying to work with you..... Anyhow, nowhere in that jibberish did I see the answer to the two questions of; and ..... Uh .... ok. Which one? As counter proof, I offer all of my previous posts. And, to back them up, I offer all of the internet for crying out loud. The truth is out there ....................................

No. Translation is no I do not pay for it as it is a reciprocal deal and I know now for sure that you you are not interested in information from impartial intelligence services when they do not support your cemented in place views. You do understand a bit I can see. However, you miss the point that the war was not a one reason deal. This was on of the reasons is all. Maybe a stronger one, maybe a weaker one than many of the others. That's why I find it disproportionate how you spend much of the bandwidth picking this one apart when you should be defending your point about democracy. As for the real kickers, yes, the Iranians did very well here but, to them as you know, even with the 'Mad Hatter' supposedly in charge, they are no fools and played out a bad hand very well. The strength of the insurgency and the accelerating snowball effect that terrorism can play caught them by surprise as well. Stratfor is impartial. You and Lonius use them as quoting sources to support your points. Al Qeda is a force that has to be dealt with even though is is extreme;ly uncomfortable to the Royal House. Try to use logic and fact Black Dog. The first word was 'if' Meaning that if your argument is supported by fact and logic you wouldn't have to twist or omit a word in order to make your point. Like what? Iran taking over the Staights of Homuz? Devastated by air power. Iran sending converntional forces into Iraq? Air power. Syria marshalling Jihadists on their border to send them into Iraq? Special Forces and air power. Yes, the US has suddenly run out of Tomahawks. I recognize Hamas as the democraticly elected government of the Palesinians. You don't? Hell, they can't support the people nor rule their land but they are the government. Huh? Never said that. If they elect a jihadist organization like Hamas or hezbollah then so be it. Fair game and then they too can be on the list of the 'Axis of Evil' but, that's their people's choice. I must admit, you're growing up. That was a more gracious exit of a losing argument than your last one of

Well then stop asking me to simplify perfectly striaghtforward answers then. It seems obvious you are doing that just to be annoying as you demand it then discard it when given so please, grow up. Then perhaps you would explain what the limitations on 'any means necessary' are then. Yes, when pigs fly. Key point is how many of them had one in ten people on the payroll as an informent? Not a police officer, doctor, military officer but paid spy with one purpose - to turn in people for torture. You never do supply links the quote function eludes you as well so no surprise there. If I recall, the legitimate Iraqi government was flaunting UN resolutions and paved the way for a necessary means to be taken to put them in complience with those resolutions. Huh? You couldn't answer the question of what type of government the Iraqis should have had so, I take it that it should be up to them to decide themselves. That's ok with you right? I mean, holding an election is not such an absurd idea to you so they can determine which way they wish to go? IOWs you would welcome a repressive government that would enslave the country and kill ethnicly different people as that is a certainty to happen without a representative government. Iraq - 1932 USA - 1776 Get your facts straight. And a lot less than Saddam caused on average in his day to day administration of Iraq. Yes, if that is the way you keep score then it was worth it definitely. And, how come the Iraqi people only get three years of your patience to set up a democracy where people get a say in their future when you were willing to give an evil dictator like Saddam over a dozen years to continue to flaunt UN resolutions, invade other countries, torture his own people, allow his sons to murder and rape whomever they wished and just generally enslave twenty five million people?

Most likely. Just wait for another attck right? Best defence is to just wait for it to happen. Have a good emergency response plan. How so? Jihadist thrieve in countries where people are oppressed. Taking out Saddam and helping build a democracy where people have a voice was a good thing for the people of Iraq, for the people of the region and, for the world. Wow. From rocks and sharp sticks to nukes in just a couple of years. The hated Wilkpedia supporting my point. Seems all was not right even before Bush took office.

I don't pay. I also take back my offer to provide access to you as well. Stick with truthout, it's a better placebo for you. Still awaiting evidence it was not..... As we both know, the Saudis would never admit to being intimidated and, the US would never admit to orchestrating this for the benifit of a non cooperative Saudi regime in need of a kick in the pants. So, I suppose we will only find out in ten or so years in somebody's memoirs. If and when this occurs, I hope that you remember our exchange fondly. Appearing to be willing and able to do it to the Saudis was a threat to their regime. To them, if the US had to conduct an operation (which they easily could, and, had every right to do if the Saudis did not themselves) would be propaganda for Al Queda to rouse the masses with against them. The whole intent of the US was NOT to do this but APPEAR to be frothing to do so. It was designed to get a Saudi reaction, not embroil the US in operations within Saudi Arabia, considered holy land to every Muslim on earth. No. The US was confident the Saudis could take AL Queda, it was just their unwillingness to open up the can of worms that made for very uncomfortable times in the kingdom that prevented them from doing so. If they simply bought and sold oil to whomever and fed their people and lived in peace an harmony with other nations then they would be in no danger from the US. We know however, that if they do manage to take over, that would more than likely not be the case as they persue their vision of a greater Caliphate. If that occurs, and they do, then they would be in danger of being the subject of western action. No. Democracy is based on holding elections. If they do not, then they cannot be a democracy. Iraq had elections and the people participated in overwhelming numbers to make their country a democracy of their choice. If you don't think the country is democratic then take it up with the overwhelming majority who made it theirs. Oh. Black Dog, the guy with no letters behind his name says it is not. Myata's turn; Helloooooo Myata. Earth to Myata. Remember you said So I try to make it realllllll slooooooooow so you understand (acting on your request) but you don't have time to read it. Ok. When they gave authorization for member states to use whatever means necessary to ensure Iraq complied with 660 and all relevent subsequent resolutions. If that meant that member states had to take out Saddam, nuke the entire country or invade then that was written into the clause by giving no limit as to what action was deemed 'too necessary.' Yes they were alongside the US and UN. As I said, the US created the conditions for democracy. That involved provisional governments and electorial processes which culminated in a free vote which as you might have missed - 65% of the people took part in. They didn't? Saddam was a student of Stalinistic state terror and honed it far better than Joe ever did. Nobody was going to overthrow Saddam (who built the secret police from the bottom up with his relatives)with one person in ten being a paid informent with goon squads rolling up in a neighborhood to cut off some hapless housewife's head of just as a warning to all not to screw with the party. If you, in your hollywood dreamworld think there was a chance, they were too dam slow, the member states beat them to it. And yes, there are many links for that. Keywords 'saddam hussein, rise to power' 'state sponsored terror in iraq' 'saddam, control/secret poolice' that sort of thing. You never answered the question. I surmise that to even attempt to would give away the obvious fact that there has to be some sort of government in Iraq and that it would be irresponsible for the US not to help the Iraqis set it up by not giving people a voice in what it was. Here it is; The Question Myata won't answer. Mindless to 'realllll sloooooooow' people I suppose. Oh, possibly you can answer another question that seems to stump anti war types; How come the Iraqi people only get three years of your patience to set up a democracy where people get a say in their future when you were willing to give an evil dictator like Saddam over a dozen years to continue to flaunt UN resolutions, invade other countries, torture his own people, allow his sons to murder and rape whomever they wished and just generally enslave twenty five million people?

So Gore would have called it quits after invading Afganistan? Nothing to quell Jihadism? And no pressure on Saddam other than what had been done for a decade? Katrina would have been a no sweat operation with the elite FEMA that was in place? Kim Jong with suddenly no nuclear aspirations? Wow. Where on earth did this internet inventor have all these plans hidden?

Good point. That is the status quo as it stands now. When one party owns twice as much as they do it changes the equation. That's what I speak of. Exactly. That's why we should do everything in our power to ensure that countries such as Iraq get to hold elections and allow the people themselves to decide rather than armed groups of terrorists and insurgents trying to impose their will on the majority. So then Saddam's torture was the way to go. You must be an extreme right winger for sure. People living under state sponsored terror, invading countries to pay the bank roll. Yes, extreme right wing for sure. Glad to know you, but, am afraid that myself am a bit more liberal than you as I believe in democracy and people having a choice in their lives, rather than having it imosed on them by force sorry to say.

That was on my list of possibilities as it would have been the easiest and, surest way to solve the immediate problem - Iraq/Iran and the local region. However, it would have done little to set up a long term stoppage against radical Islam/Jihadist mentality or Islamofacisim as democracy is their enemy and they thrieve under rep[pressive conditions. Iranian troops in Baghdad fighting Saudi forces? I must be missing something in the news. Any power that can unite those factions under whatever rule can write their own ticket and would have lots of choices to whom to sell to.

The Oath So if Iraq is considered by the present administration to be of concern enogh to send troops there to fight, then it is their duty to obey the orders of the President and defend another's constitution. Not too bright for the long term peace of the region and, given it's importence to the world, the peace of same. To leave Iraq, which is extremely strategic to the region would set in motion a prize to be fought for by the three main players of the region. All of which seek regional hedgemony. Sunni Islam in Saudi Arabia, Shiite Islam in Iran and Wahhabist Jihadists trying to recreate the old Caliphate. If any one of them gain power in Iraq, they pretty much have the entire region sewed up with repercussions being global within the lifetime of our children. In any case, none of them would be permitted by any administration to take over as the tipping of the balance of power would create an Islamic super state that would would control a good part of the oil resources of the planet. This potential imbalance would draw every power in the world to take a side with the resulting fight a possible world war in which millions would die.

Myata Sure. Originally, you said; Myata To sum it up (correct me if I have it wrong) you are saying that the Bush administration does not get it because you can't roll in with an army and set up an instant democracy by force as it takes years for the idea to be understood. To which I replied; KK What that means is that the other side of the coin (anti Bush types who believe he has done wrong in this operation from the start) believe that the US should pull out and that the Iraqi people should not get any time to solidify their democracy. Time which you say is necessary in order for it to work is to be denied to them. In effect, they (Kerryites) would be running counter to what you say is necessary for democracy to be enacted. I note that those types find it in their interest to have democracy fail as they were of the opinion that an evil dictator should have been given more than a dozen years to flaunt UNSC resolutions, torture his own people and be afforded opportunities to invade other countries rather than help the people set up a democracy. These are hardly the arguments of people (Kerryites) who wish to see anything other than a sucessful democracy take place in Iraq. To which you replied; Myata I thought I made that clear when I talked about the Kerryites, those who wish for the US to pull out now on authority from the US people through the electoral system when and if they get voted into power next election. I explain that below; KK Then, you change the tempo of the discussion with; Myata Nobody. The US created the conditions for it in Iraq when they removed an evil dictator under the authority of the United Nations Security Council then, helped the Iraqi people themselves set up the framework for democracy. If you will note, there were no US candidates running in that process - all were Iraqi. At no time was a gun put to anyone’s head to force them to either run for office or …. vote for any particular party. Now, it would be irresponsible to simply leave Iraq in a vacum as an other dictator would simply come to power so please tell me what sort of government would you have had the US help the Iraqis set up as an alternative to democracy that would have pleased you? Anarchy? Monarchy? Communism? A Dictatorship much like what they just removed? If you were an Iraqi, how would you decide other than by having a vote on it in a democratic election or refferandum? Myata But you said it takes years for it to entrench itself in a society so why do you call it a failure after only three years? As for understanding what democracy is, 65% of the Iraqi people (more than in Canada) took part in the democratic process under threat of death. Seems they understand it a lot more than we do here and, so does Bush as he helped them set it up.

Left wingers who didn't want the invasion to take place and now want the US to withdraw and leave Iraq to anarchy. Kerryites. On the authority of a changed US government run by what they think will be a party that will take a different course. Coincidental? Does the unheard of before now elections and human rights amendments in Saudi Arabia go hand in hand with your 'coincidence' as well? I'm sorry that I don't have a tape recording of top level conversations between US and Saudi officials but, I am sure you would agree that the subject matter of those conversations would be very undesirable for either party to have made public. I gave you two sources and high profile ones at that. You tried to cut Stratfor apart but, seeing as how they advise not only billion dollar companies needing reliable information and diagnosis as well as the US government at times, you found it to be not up to your standards. I again offer them: Stratfor Stratfor again another one. And this; Oh, and the Saudis figured out elections would be cool on their own too right? And women should have rights too? In order to be attacked, they would actually have to do something wrong. Not selling oil to the US is not grounds for war. Invading Kuwait would be. Yes. Now you get it! Like controlling, being undemocratic so they can be in charge and force their will. Oh, you mean the country of Iraq which is democratic? You still have not provided proof to support your argument. In it's place, I give another definition. So, considering that all people have a voice (65% participated in the election process, more than our own country) you consider that non democratic simply because a small percentage choose not to engage in this process?

And, the Flip Flopping Kerry types who don't have a clue believe that Iraq should not be afforded an opportunity to get those years to set in. All the while they were willing to give Saddam a dozen years and more.

I don't know and either do any of us here on this board. McCain might have more knowledge of the situation, capabilities and political scene than we do, but certainly less than the President or Rumsfeld. Certtainly more troops would help in one way but, would do little to push the Iraqi government to take more responsibility therefore, the call is for those who are political and military with access to both inside worlds. Withdraw when? Now, this second?

Convoluted logic for sure. In Saddam's time, they were threatened with harm for NOT showing up. Now, they are threatened if the DO. Yet, they showed up in numbers bigger than we did. You might if they were constitutionally permitted to do that however, at this time, I don't believe they are but could be wrong. As per clearing out people, I imagine that the government would send in federal troops to prevent action such as that, same as we would if the Party Q took similar action against immigrants.

For a lot of reasons that I listed here. There are probably more.

I don't have to as you said; So, all I did was to show you that a process would not have to be as you put forth. Rather, stark, simple realities could be easily explained complete with examples. Now, be a good boy and prove they did not. Syria, Iran and Yemen are all ferverently anti US. If you recall, you said ""The instant their regime became a threat to western interests they were out on their asses. "" Well, all of the above are a threat to US interests, as was Russia and presently so is North Korea, China and even France and the EU to some degree. The US does not only act against Talibnan style governments but all governments that threaten their interests. Terrorism is a tool or weapon that is used. The disease is people who wish to stop freedom. Parties promise to do things and sometimes cannot as they do not control parliament. We witness it everyday here in Canada. However, they take a position to do something and are expected to move in that direction. So, Canada should self implode with terrorism because the Liberals did not get rid of the GST as promised? Gee, that's about the same figures as English and French Canada. Seems Quebec has a similar argument and here, you think we have a democracy. It really is hard to take you seriously when denial is to you a river in Egypt.

It relies on one thing only - telling them point blank behind closed doors that if they don't start acting on this problem the US will. Then more than likely used Iraq and Afganistan as an example. Iran, Syria, Yemen. None of them have been destroyed by the US. Need I go on further? Oh, Saudi Arabia with half of the population ready to swing to Al Queda's side if they can percipitate enough critical mass with their anti Royalty and US rhetoric. Yes, 100% secure. Just like many other regimes thoughout the area where Al Queda is active. What are the impediments then? Seems to me that the base problem is terrorism no matter what the political reasons for any particular group to employ that tactic are. Whether it is conducted by Shiites, Former Regime members, Sunnis or Jihadists. It simply keeps all on edge and weakens the government. It is though. When the vote comes up again, things that people want will be on the agenda. If freedom of the press is desired then, they will vote for the party that can give it. Same with the rest. Is it not an election promise by many candidates to improve court systems and human rights, even in our own country? Predictable given the life they have had for the past fifty years. Here in our country, Quebcqois voted for the PQ. Imagine that! Extreme Right Rednecks voted for the left of center Conservatives who copy their ideas from the Liberals and non morons like you voted for the corrupt Liberals. Seemed to fall into the same pattern as always. In case you haven't figured it out, voting is based on a thing called majority rules and representation. Then again, a smart guy like you knew that right? So if a country is 80% Shiite and being Shiite is real importent, more than say ..... saving the planet from pop bottle trash, then, it would seem natural that they would vote Shiite rather than Whican than Green wouldn't it? If we follow your logic, there is no sense in having elections anywhere, anytime and with anybody as we would all, no matter who we are, vote for what we think. And, in your smart world, can't have that right? It's called seats in a parlimentary system. Check it out sometime. Very interesting system. I look forward to your next post so I can teach you more about the basics of politics as there is so far to go .

Dobs, good post. I don't agree with everything but as i have to run will leave you with a kudos for being level headed with pretty much most of it with no major arguments.