Justice?

[randolph]

Four questions
1- Did the Iraq war benefit the American people?
2- Did the Iraq war benefit the Iraqi people?
3- Did the war increase the influence of Iran?
4- Did the war diminish the influence of Al Quida?

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by randolph

Four questions
1- Did the Iraq war benefit the American people?
2- Did the Iraq war benefit the Iraqi people?
3- Did the war increase the influence of Iran?
4- Did the war diminish the influence of Al Quida?

I'm not saying a case couldn't be made that the Iraq war was unnecessary. I'm just sick of this bullshit that has been going around since the 2004 election that it was all Bush's fault and only Bush's fault. Bush followed what the intelligence from the CIA was showing, and has been showing since 1998 - that Saddam had WMDs and wasn't getting rid of them according to the UN resolution. The mistake has been the CIA's all along.

The country was pretty much one voice after 9/11. There were bipartisan intelligence committees in congress going over all the intelligence data. They were all on the same page about what it incorrectly showed. Bush did not start the Iraq war all by himself. The House of Representatives voted for it 297/133. The Senate voted for it 77/23. Based not only on the Bush administration's case but on the bipartisan intelligence committees findings.

Then comes the 2004 elections and the dems couldn't be seen agreeing with the president all the time. There would be no reason to vote for them if they were simply going along with Bush. So there was a sudden shift where all of Bush's bipartisan support evaporated and the presidential campaign was on. That's when WMD experts like Sean Penn, George palney and Michael Moore started the campaign against Bush. It was a circus full of lies and revisionist history and the opposition has been in this mode ever since the 2004 election.

1. - yes, but unfortunately was drug out far longer than it should have been because half the support for the war evaporated.

2. - I don't know any iraqis, but I'd imagine it's nice not to have to worry about being gassed and to be able to elect your own leaders.

3. - No, was it supposed to? It could have if the support remained. With troops in Afghanistan and Iraq, and control of the Persian Gulf, we could have mounted operations from east, south and west. From what was said after 9/11 this was probably the initial strategy. But, thank your congressmen & hollywood experts - support for this was over.

4. - Yes. Iraq acted like an Al Qaeda magnet. We didn't have to fight them in the US, we could do it in Iraq, and we did.

[smc]

Originally Posted by randolph

Four questions
1- Did the Iraq war benefit the American people?

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

1. - yes, but unfortunately was drug out far longer than it should have been because half the support for the war evaporated.

What is the benefit? The billions of dollars spent? The thousands of lives lost? The bitter acrimony against the United States throughout the Muslim world? The lower oil prices from occupying an oil-producing country? The permanent military presence the United States will be able to establish in Iraq? Name the benefit. "Yes" is not sufficient.

Originally Posted by randolph

2- Did the Iraq war benefit the Iraqi people?

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

2. - I don't know any iraqis, but I'd imagine it's nice not to have to worry about being gassed and to be able to elect your own leaders.

I do know some Iraqis. While you're busy imagining what they think might be nice, they remind me that there was no sectarian violence in Iraq before the United States invaded, that despite living under a despot there was general peace in the country, that other than the criminal blockade that kept medicine (primarily) from children foodstuffs were generally available ... etc., etc., etc. At least one of my Iraqi acquaintances has told me that he would take the entire Hussein family in power for his entire life over the death of his 76-year-old mother in a bombing by the United States military.

Originally Posted by randolph

3- Did the war increase the influence of Iran?

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

3. - No, was it supposed to? It could have if the support remained. With troops in Afghanistan and Iraq, and control of the Persian Gulf, we could have mounted operations from east, south and west. From what was said after 9/11 this was probably the initial strategy. But, thank your congressmen & hollywood experts - support for this was over.

The answer to this question is yes, even if Tracy Coxx reveals a profound lack of understanding of the region. The current Iraqi regime supported by the United States is closely aligned with Iran. Prior to the invasion and occupation, Iran had little influence in Iraq. Now, as the CIA itself acknowledges, Iran wields enormous political influence within the sitting Iraqi government. And who made that happen? The United States.

Originally Posted by randolph

4- Did the war diminish the influence of Al Quida?

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

4. - Yes. Iraq acted like an Al Qaeda magnet. We didn't have to fight them in the US, we could do it in Iraq, and we did.

Iraq became "an Al Qaeda magnet" after the U.S. invasion, because there's nothing like an unwarranted invasion of a Muslim country to aid the recruitment of Muslim radicals and get them to go and fight the "infidel" in the invaded country.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by smc

What is the benefit? The billions of dollars spent? The thousands of lives lost? The bitter acrimony ...

Randolf, I believe it's against forum rules to be using two accounts.

[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Randolf, I believe it's against forum rules to be using two accounts.

I guess when one doesn't even respect the discussion -- or a single one of the discussants (including those with whom there is agreement) -- enough to respond to actual points made, it's time to pull out a bullshit statement like this. Everyone knows it's not Randolph doing my posting.As I wrote elsewhere, it's political cowardice when someone throws out ideological "bombs" or regurgitates talking points but won't back them up in real discourse.

[randolph]

The Supreme Court is supposed to be the final arbiter of justice based on the guidelines in the Constitution.

Is the current Supreme court issuing justice or political decisions?

[smc]

Originally Posted by randolph

The Supreme Court is supposed to be the final arbiter of justice based on the guidelines in the Constitution.

Is the current Supreme court issuing justice or political decisions?

The U.S. Supreme Court was not established to be the "final arbiter of justice," but rather to interpret whether a law falls within the strictures of the U.S. Constitution. Hence, when blacks in this country were slaves, the Supreme Court found that the institution of slavery was "constitutional." Would anyone here argue that slavery as an institution represents justice in any way, shape, or form? I don't think so. This illustrates that "justice" per se is not the purview of the Supreme Court.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by randolph

The Supreme Court is supposed to be the final arbiter of justice based on the guidelines in the Constitution.

Is the current Supreme court issuing justice or political decisions?

WIth appointees like Sonia Sotomayor, it's heading towards political decisions. One or two more appointees like her and the Supreme Court will be as loony as the 9th Circuit Court. Only there will be no one to overturn them.