Debunking the myth: We hit a hornet's nest with a stick

I was just watching Danny Douche (that's his real name) on MSNBC and there was someone on there saying "We made a mistake, we hit a hornet's nest with a stick, and now we are getting stung and must get out."

The first point I want to make is that once again he is using hindsight, which is always 20/20. He is saying the Iraq was wasn't worth it knowing what we know now. Well that's the point! We didn't know. No one could give us a definitive answer that Sadaam had no WMDs, and a year and a half after 9/11, it wasn't a risk we are going to take.

It is also downplaying the high stakes that we are playing with this war. If we pull this off and make Iraq democratic and rich, like South Korea is to Asia, that would completly destroy Islamic terrorism right there. Iraq presents a unique oppurtunity of a rich middle class that hates its ruling party that has a ton of resources to keep it going. Making them democratic would make Iranians and Saudis say "If it is good for Iraqis, it must be good for us." If we don't pull this off, al Qaeda has a new state, an army, and a ton of money. What do you think would happen then?

It also presents the view that we are losing, which we aren't. We are kicking ass. This campaign is probably the most successful ever in military history. It is more succesful than the Normandy invasion and the Battle of Gettysburgh.

And lastly and more importantly, it is really insulting to the Iraqi people. It puts them in the sterotypes of savage Arab terrorists or helpless idiot. They are ignoring the good things that are going on in Iraq, like millions risking death to vote for the first time, and focus on just what benefits their own selfish interests.

You need a blog.

Or like MSNBC's email.

Who are you talking to? Really.

The first point I want to make is that once again he is using hindsight, which is always 20/20. He is saying the Iraq was wasn't worth it knowing what we know now. Well that's the point! We didn't know. No one could give us a definitive answer that Sadaam had no WMDs, and a year and a half after 9/11, it wasn't a risk we are going to take.

www.downingstreetmemo.com...

"The contents of the memos are shocking. The July 23, 2002 minutes detail how our government did not believe Iraq was a greater threat than other nations; how intelligence was packaged to sell the case for war to both Congress and the American public; and how the Bush Administration’s public assurances of "war as a last resort" were at odds with their privately stated intentions."

What's your point again?

Oh yeah the Downing Street Memo. The US wanted to get rid of Saddam. Big surprise.

And it still does not address my more valid points:
1. No one could give us a 100% that Saddam did not have WMDs and was a threat.
2. No other place offered the unique oppurtunity that Iraq did geographical, receptness to regime change, rich middle class, influence on Arab world, education, wealth, and potential to compete on global economy.
3. Letting threats slide just a year and a half after 9/11.

What are your responses to these points?

And I have family in Hendorsonville. You in Memphis?

Who are you talking to? Really.
Well nothing's happening in the news and we need something to talk about. Plus this board is very sympathetic to the terrorists and thought it would be good to share the views of the other side.

I'm also going to start a new thread called "Compare my points to Bush's" and want people to judge who would be more effective. I think that would be fun.

And for personal reasons, this is just my way of venting after a hard day at the offices. I jog in the morning, so my body is pretty beat up to workout.

Originally posted by RedWhiteandBlood
Oh yeah the Downing Street Memo. The US wanted to get rid of Saddam. Big surprise.

And it still does not address my more valid points:
1. No one could give us a 100% that Saddam did not have WMDs and was a threat.
2. No other place offered the unique oppurtunity that Iraq did geographical, receptness to regime change, rich middle class, influence on Arab world, education, wealth, and potential to compete on global economy.
3. Letting threats slide just a year and a half after 9/11.

What are your responses to these points?

And I have family in Hendorsonville. You in Memphis?

Who cares where you family lives? Why does that matter to anything at all?
Do you have to have family in Iraq to sympathise with a child who is orphaned by a misguided missle? Do you see humanity as a whole or colours seperated by borders and oceans?

1. That you started a war for your own interests and based them on information which you knew was not true - the Downing St memo is why your first point is NOT valid. They didn't get 100% confirmation there were no WMDs so that means they can lie to present a threat?
If you put all the information into a timeline then it becomes obvious that they knew there wasn't a threat and instead of finding one, they lied about one. They didn't prove 100% that there was a threat because the information they provided was either outdated or a flat out lie.

2. When number 1 became public knowledge they said the war for for humanitarian reasons which REAL humanitarian groups have labelled as the worst humanitarian mission of all time because it's doing more destruction than humanitarian assistance making that not valid either!
Now it's becoming obvious that the war was for their own interests at the costs of the lives of others and when that happens, other countries like China who are at risk of being cut off and who are owed a lot of money will do the same thing America did - Everything they can do to look after their own interests at the expense of others.

This is how WW3 will begin and your supporting this because you believe what exactly? That because America was 'attacked' on 9/11, it should avenge all threats real or not, possible or not just to be sure but instead of doing that via normal ways you would track and bring down criminals they should do it via a show of dominanating force with doctrines that state to the rest of the world that you get in line or get in front of our aim??

3. There were no threats after 9/11 that haven't been around for years. They made you believe there was a threat that needed to be taken care of. Iraq was a lie, Afghanistan is about securing more American interests than actually desolving a threat if you bother to read about Taliban/Warlords treatment of Afghans (read a book called 'Absurdistan').
The real threats to America are the ones in America and the ones in the Saudi Palace. Even if 9/11 is the base for chasing these threats, it's still America and Saudi Arabia that are the centre of these threats yet they are left out of every equation because exposing the real threats would expose the lies you've bought.

Don't you understand that what America is doing it going to come back on America? Who's telling China they can't 'pre-empt' or they can't do what has to be done to keep their energy supplies alive because they WILL be at that point within 10 years. Everyone acknowledges that China is moving faster forward than any other nation so how can you throw out logic like 'pre-emption on suspicions' without expecting to recieve it at some point?

I don't know how i can explain in a way that you'll understand but i'm sure if you live for the next 10 years you'll see it and all i can say is that i hope you don't fall for the dribble they spout on the news between the sport and weather headlines because if you do, then you won't realise what's going on until you hear the whistle of the bomb.

Seriously, read some books written by investigative journalists who have been in all said countries by people who have associated on the ground and been in the action, that's how you'll learn what repercussions are already starting to ripple out of this fake war.

Originally posted by RedWhiteandBlood
The first point I want to make is that once again he is using hindsight, which is always 20/20. He is saying the Iraq was wasn't worth it knowing what we know now. Well that's the point! We didn't know. No one could give us a definitive answer that Sadaam had no WMDs, and a year and a half after 9/11, it wasn't a risk we are going to take.

Correction. You and many others didn't know. Plenty of us did. You should be taking the corporate mainstream media to task for lying to you in support of this administration. If you don't want to be lied to again, you might try finding more reliable sources.

Run a google search on former Marine/Gulf War vet and Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter's writings concerning Iraq and Saddam's WMD capabilities from the end of the Gulf War to the 2003 invasion. He's been dead on from day one.