Why are Democrats trying to rewrite History on why we went to war? - Page 2

mimo2005 · 11-15-2005, 01:28 AM

Iraq war illegal

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3661134.stm

why couldnt we wait one more month until we sort out our problems at the U.N. , and have the green light to go ahead and invade iraq ?

but in the other hand , i am happy Saddam is out and captured , he tortured and killed so many iraqian opposants .

newhouse1390 · 11-15-2005, 04:08 AM

we cannot rely on the UN to make decisions for us. To remind you the Iraq resolution would have been vetoed by our "allies" France and Germany thats why we gave up it was going to go nowhere.

Yustr, I respect your decision on not supporting the war from the beginning but other members of congress did support the war. (kerry, Edwards) They are nowing turning their backs when the going got tuff. These senators gave the president the authorization to use force period. You are trying to re-write the history like the senators are.

Iraq posed a therat before we went in with WMD's and they are still a dangerous threat IF we abandon Iraq. There are terrorists in Iraq if we leave them be then iraq will turn into a hotground for terrorists and there will be an all out civil war. We will not leave iraq.

As i marine i do feel sick when i hear the war being politisized. We all need to come together and support this war and win it. there is no other option.

**bruiser** · 11-15-2005, 06:32 AM

Here we have the dem senators now claiming they were not sure if the info was correct or not, but they voted for it anyway. That's much worse than believing the info and voting for it. I didn't really believe it, but I voted for the resolution. There's a bunch of sunshine patriots and summer soldiers trying their best to undermine the war effort. Look up Thomas Paine if you don't understand the reference to sunshine patriots and summer soldiers.

yustr · 11-15-2005, 06:51 AM

How many numbers are in this series?

4,5,6 ?

All of us would say 3.

But the series actually looked like this: 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9. I chose to show you only the middle 3. Why? Maybe because the others didn't serve my purpose.

That is what the senators are claiming. Sure they saw the same inteligence as the administration but they didn't see it before it was filtered through the administration and cherry picked to show only that which supported Bush's position.

Tumbleweed36 · 11-15-2005, 07:06 AM

Quote:

That is what the senators are claiming. Sure they saw the same inteligence as the administration but they didn't see it before it was filtered through the administration and cherry picked to show only that which supported Bush's position.

Hi,

Somehow, I surely hope you don't believe that balterdash! That is frankly a cop out for Democrats.

They are claiming that (unfounded or unproven) because they think this is an issue to get to Bush on. Democrats would love to get Bush on something and they keep coming up short.

We know that all senators (both republican and democrat) run for the hills when it is time to accept responsibility for something that is unpopular or an election is coming up. You could bet that if poll numbers were high on this one, they all would be saying, "I supported that." I can hear them now (if that were the case and poll numbers were high) running around to Sunday talk shows and holding press conferences saying, "see how great I am, this senator supported the republican position." "I really believe in bi-partisan support when something is important to our country."

The self-rightous Senators that we have elected are a bunch of "Me Too" people and we all know that. Their goal is simply to get elected again so they can keep the power they cherish and this has nothing to do with party lines or political position.

yustr · 11-15-2005, 07:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yustr

Are the Senators back tracking. I don't think so. Are they changing their minds as new facts are brought forward and as the war grinds on? I hope that's what it is (but I'm pretty sure its just political posturing). But a vast majority of Americans are changing thier minds.

Tumble...we agree on this one.

But Rove, oops I mean Bush, is a master at the ol slight of hand. By making the issue "Why did we go in?" deflects from the question of the the incompetence of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld in carrying out the war. As you and Bruiser rightly point out, regardless of why - we're there now. Soldiers are dying now.

Let's put this one to bed because it is distracting us from determining what our objectives are and, if we agree with them, how best can they be acheived?

bry623 · 11-15-2005, 08:48 AM

Well put.

**oshwyn5** · 11-15-2005, 09:37 AM

Someone once pointed out that
"History is written by the victors."
What this means, is that those in power often control what internal conversations and deliberations will be released and which explanations are going to be given to the public for actions. Those in power are unlikely to portray their decisions as misguided or imbecilic.
It is a characteristic of authoritarian regimes that the group in power writes history in such a manner as to portray their actions and decisions favorably and when a new faction assumes control they "rewrite history" to make their predecessors actions appear to be the cause of current problems. This was repeatedly the case in the old communist Soviet Union. The problem was not a communist problem, it was a problem with a totalitarian regime.

The United States has long enjoyed what most would percieve as an unfettered access to the truth in regards to historical events; however the very fact that this question is asked (Why are the Democrats trying to rewrite history?) indicates that this is no longer the case.

Normally the flow of information has been so slow (and the press and opposition party respectful of the current administration ) that questions as to motivation and exactly what was know were left to later generations (such as the questions as to whether or not FDR knew about or should have anticipated the attack on Pearl Harbor); but we now live in the information age. Richard Nixon and The Watergate breakin probably mark the end of the time when Presidential decisions and knowledge were regarded as so priveleged that they were not open for questioning until well after the end of term.

When you have a President who remarks that he no longer cares what polls say and is not interested in the opinions of The American Public , but is making decisions to further his personal agenda then it becomes incumbent upon others to question his decisions and ask for clarification of the basis on which they are made. This includes scrutinizing past decisions which have monumentally impacted the country.

Anyone who has a modicum of intelligence could have forseen that an invasion of Iraq and removal of its military threat to the region would have removed the Saudi Arabian's dependence upon the United States as an ally to protect them from invasion. This dependence had long guaranteed that they would maintain the price of crude oil at an artificially low level. Once the threat of agression by a neighboring state was removed, they would be free to raise prices to whatever the world market would bear. Additionally, while they had in the past had a strong reason to root out fundamentalist groups and terrorist cells which threatened US interests, this is no longer the case unless these groups threaten them personally.

newhouse1390 · 11-15-2005, 12:21 PM

The poll numbers that the president is getting right now is very common for second term presidents...Reagan...Clinton and now GW. Why is everyone shocked?? Does anyone else see the double standard set up by democrats?? It seems as if they have one for everything.

**40sondacurb** · 11-15-2005, 05:51 PM

newhouse1390 · 11-15-2005, 07:01 PM

If the Iraq war is illegal as mimo claims it to be then why did the US Congress unanimously approve the President going to war?

This is really garbage to say that the President is a liar. Poor politicts on the side of democrats...it will backfire..you wait.

mimo2005 · 11-15-2005, 07:27 PM

hahaha

Quote:

the Iraq war is illegal

It is koffy annan (head of the U.N ) who said that , not me .

**bruiser** · 11-16-2005, 05:49 AM

Oh yeah, Annan. He shouldn't be secretary of a 4H club, much less the UN.

mimo2005 · 11-16-2005, 06:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bruiser

Oh yeah, Annan. He shouldn't be secretary of a 4H club, much less the UN.

"Mistakes made in pre-war intelligence were honest mistakes" lol

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Nov...51115_3357.html

honest mistake .....hummm
let me see if any other country will make an honest mistake , and do you think we will forgive them for that honest mistake ?

bry623 · 11-16-2005, 07:28 AM

OK, so we did not find the types or amount of weapons that the liberals would like us to have. So I have an idea, let's clean Sadaam up, shave him and reassamble the Baath party. We'll prop him back up and Iraq can be ran the way it used to. Unfotuantely for Sadaam, his sons were killed so he will have to find someone else to do his torturing for him. He'll have to beef up his army again to corral all of the women who get to vote and suddenly will not be able to. His oil minister will have to be someone who is good at duplicity; Koffi Annan and the French will be watched more closely in their dealings with Iraq.

Of course if Bush pulled out now, he would be villiifed by the libs for not finishing the job.

**Wozer** · 11-16-2005, 08:34 AM

who's to say the history is being 'rewritten'?...maybe its being corrected...

so much disinformation is about that it's really hard for me to tell...

for those of you who wish to label me as a 'liberal'.....I am very conservative, and at the same fairly liberal...I label myself as a realist...the 2 party system which exists is the real root of the problem...when ppl start backing each other just because of party politics, things go to hell real quick..and this started ages upon ages ago...as did corruption of course...etc, etc, etc...

yustr · 11-16-2005, 08:37 AM

Bry, you forgot a key player:

Good ol Bagdad Bob...

Tumbleweed36 · 11-16-2005, 08:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bruiser

Oh yeah, Annan. He shouldn't be secreta

11-15-2005, 01:28 AM	#21 (permalink)
mimo2005 Manager, The Relaxation Room/Analyst, Security Team Join Date: Oct 2004 Posts: 10,388 OS: xp	Iraq war illegal http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3661134.stm why couldnt we wait one more month until we sort out our problems at the U.N. , and have the green light to go ahead and invade iraq ? but in the other hand , i am happy Saddam is out and captured , he tortured and killed so many iraqian opposants . __________________ TSF has outgrown its server, again. Please help "Gutta cavat lapidem, non vi sed saepe cadendo"

11-15-2005, 06:51 AM	#24 (permalink)
yustr Asst. Manager, The Conversation Pit Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Connecticut shore/California Desert Posts: 4,560 OS: PCLinuxOS, XP Pro My System	How many numbers are in this series? 4,5,6 ? All of us would say 3. But the series actually looked like this: 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9. I chose to show you only the middle 3. Why? Maybe because the others didn't serve my purpose. That is what the senators are claiming. Sure they saw the same inteligence as the administration but they didn't see it before it was filtered through the administration and cherry picked to show only that which supported Bush's position. __________________ I didn't mean to say it. But I meant what I said. J. McMurtry

11-15-2005, 08:48 AM	#27 (permalink)
bry623 Manager, The Conversation Pit/Analyst, Security Team Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: NW Territory circa 1787 Posts: 10,367 OS: winxp pro sp2	Well put. __________________ Scarlet and Gray in L.A. 9/13/08

11-15-2005, 05:51 PM	#30 (permalink)
40sondacurb #64 & #36 BACKBONE Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 5,687 OS: xp	__________________ Donate to keep the forum running "I know the human being and fish can coexist peacefully" -George W. Bush

11-16-2005, 07:28 AM	#35 (permalink)
bry623 Manager, The Conversation Pit/Analyst, Security Team Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: NW Territory circa 1787 Posts: 10,367 OS: winxp pro sp2	OK, so we did not find the types or amount of weapons that the liberals would like us to have. So I have an idea, let's clean Sadaam up, shave him and reassamble the Baath party. We'll prop him back up and Iraq can be ran the way it used to. Unfotuantely for Sadaam, his sons were killed so he will have to find someone else to do his torturing for him. He'll have to beef up his army again to corral all of the women who get to vote and suddenly will not be able to. His oil minister will have to be someone who is good at duplicity; Koffi Annan and the French will be watched more closely in their dealings with Iraq. Of course if Bush pulled out now, he would be villiifed by the libs for not finishing the job. __________________ Scarlet and Gray in L.A. 9/13/08

11-15-2005, 04:08 AM	#22 (permalink)
newhouse1390 Member, Networking Team Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Ohio Posts: 1,040 OS: Windows Server 2003	we cannot rely on the UN to make decisions for us. To remind you the Iraq resolution would have been vetoed by our "allies" France and Germany thats why we gave up it was going to go nowhere. Yustr, I respect your decision on not supporting the war from the beginning but other members of congress did support the war. (kerry, Edwards) They are nowing turning their backs when the going got tuff. These senators gave the president the authorization to use force period. You are trying to re-write the history like the senators are. Iraq posed a therat before we went in with WMD's and they are still a dangerous threat IF we abandon Iraq. There are terrorists in Iraq if we leave them be then iraq will turn into a hotground for terrorists and there will be an all out civil war. We will not leave iraq. As i marine i do feel sick when i hear the war being politisized. We all need to come together and support this war and win it. there is no other option.

11-15-2005, 06:32 AM	#23 (permalink)
bruiser TSF Enthusiast Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 1,541 OS: xp	Here we have the dem senators now claiming they were not sure if the info was correct or not, but they voted for it anyway. That's much worse than believing the info and voting for it. I didn't really believe it, but I voted for the resolution. There's a bunch of sunshine patriots and summer soldiers trying their best to undermine the war effort. Look up Thomas Paine if you don't understand the reference to sunshine patriots and summer soldiers.

11-15-2005, 09:37 AM	#28 (permalink)
oshwyn5 Registered User Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Dallas , Tx Posts: 1,430 OS: DOS,Win95,98,ME,XP, Fedora	Someone once pointed out that "History is written by the victors." What this means, is that those in power often control what internal conversations and deliberations will be released and which explanations are going to be given to the public for actions. Those in power are unlikely to portray their decisions as misguided or imbecilic. It is a characteristic of authoritarian regimes that the group in power writes history in such a manner as to portray their actions and decisions favorably and when a new faction assumes control they "rewrite history" to make their predecessors actions appear to be the cause of current problems. This was repeatedly the case in the old communist Soviet Union. The problem was not a communist problem, it was a problem with a totalitarian regime. The United States has long enjoyed what most would percieve as an unfettered access to the truth in regards to historical events; however the very fact that this question is asked (Why are the Democrats trying to rewrite history?) indicates that this is no longer the case. Normally the flow of information has been so slow (and the press and opposition party respectful of the current administration ) that questions as to motivation and exactly what was know were left to later generations (such as the questions as to whether or not FDR knew about or should have anticipated the attack on Pearl Harbor); but we now live in the information age. Richard Nixon and The Watergate breakin probably mark the end of the time when Presidential decisions and knowledge were regarded as so priveleged that they were not open for questioning until well after the end of term. When you have a President who remarks that he no longer cares what polls say and is not interested in the opinions of The American Public , but is making decisions to further his personal agenda then it becomes incumbent upon others to question his decisions and ask for clarification of the basis on which they are made. This includes scrutinizing past decisions which have monumentally impacted the country. Anyone who has a modicum of intelligence could have forseen that an invasion of Iraq and removal of its military threat to the region would have removed the Saudi Arabian's dependence upon the United States as an ally to protect them from invasion. This dependence had long guaranteed that they would maintain the price of crude oil at an artificially low level. Once the threat of agression by a neighboring state was removed, they would be free to raise prices to whatever the world market would bear. Additionally, while they had in the past had a strong reason to root out fundamentalist groups and terrorist cells which threatened US interests, this is no longer the case unless these groups threaten them personally.

11-15-2005, 12:21 PM	#29 (permalink)
newhouse1390 Member, Networking Team Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Ohio Posts: 1,040 OS: Windows Server 2003	The poll numbers that the president is getting right now is very common for second term presidents...Reagan...Clinton and now GW. Why is everyone shocked?? Does anyone else see the double standard set up by democrats?? It seems as if they have one for everything.

11-15-2005, 07:01 PM	#31 (permalink)
newhouse1390 Member, Networking Team Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Ohio Posts: 1,040 OS: Windows Server 2003	If the Iraq war is illegal as mimo claims it to be then why did the US Congress unanimously approve the President going to war? This is really garbage to say that the President is a liar. Poor politicts on the side of democrats...it will backfire..you wait.

11-16-2005, 05:49 AM	#33 (permalink)
bruiser TSF Enthusiast Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 1,541 OS: xp	Oh yeah, Annan. He shouldn't be secretary of a 4H club, much less the UN.

11-16-2005, 08:34 AM	#36 (permalink)
Wozer TSF Enthusiast Join Date: Oct 2004 Posts: 973 OS: 2kpro/XP pro/MCE	who's to say the history is being 'rewritten'?...maybe its being corrected... so much disinformation is about that it's really hard for me to tell... for those of you who wish to label me as a 'liberal'.....I am very conservative, and at the same fairly liberal...I label myself as a realist...the 2 party system which exists is the real root of the problem...when ppl start backing each other just because of party politics, things go to hell real quick..and this started ages upon ages ago...as did corruption of course...etc, etc, etc... Last edited by bry623 : 11-16-2005 at 10:42 AM.

11-16-2005, 08:37 AM	#37 (permalink)
yustr Asst. Manager, The Conversation Pit Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Connecticut shore/California Desert Posts: 4,560 OS: PCLinuxOS, XP Pro My System	Bry, you forgot a key player: Good ol Bagdad Bob... __________________ I didn't mean to say it. But I meant what I said. J. McMurtry Last edited by yustr : 11-16-2005 at 08:38 AM.