The apples-oranges cliche applies here. it is impossible to imagine Christ as a political leader because there is no frame of reference to use. Jesus was a spiritual leader, not a political one.

But neither is it UN-christlike to use force to defend the country. And the author is using the false assumption that Bush is the aggressor in our military actions.

Of course I do agree that no politician is consistently christ-like. None of us are, politician or not.

I disagree that Jesus was a-political, but we have gone over that before. Yes, Jesus was a spiritual leader, but we was also a political leader.

Bush is the aggressor in our military actions. Roland...how come you praise Bush when it comes to military successes yet say that it is not his fault when the military action is criticized?

Bush is NOT the aggressor. The war in Afghanistan was caused by the Taliban's refusal to hand over their terrorists. The war in Iraq was started by Saddam Hussein. Bush doesn't atack, he retaliates.

"The war in Iraq was started by Saddam Hussein."

You've been using this for a while to back up your circular argument. I'm not sure if you've been keeping up with the news... the British memo, Richard Clarke, Johnson, etc.; the decision was made long before - no matter what Saddam did, US foreign policy was going in and that's fact. More to come as the years pass by.

The real fact is that Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait. We kicked him out. He violated the treaty. That is fact. Indisputable.

where is the circle of which you speak?>

Number one, there were/are no wmd's. That's fact.

Number two, he invaded and we looked the other way momentarily back in '91. We also looked the other way when he slaughtered the Kurds. We also helped train and equip him in the early 80's. That's fact.

Number three, US foreign policy was going to invade Iraq despite anything he would have done. I've been saying this from the beginning. In *fact* we set up the "policy" so that he'd fail either way. That's fact. It was policy before facts, agenda before intelligence.

Number four, he wasn't a threat. We had him right where we wanted him, no weapons, strong pressure from the US and the UN.

Number five, our forces are stretched and recruiting is down because of this war of choice. We are hurting here and that's fact.

The point is, if we were going to invade anyway, Desert Storm has little to do with it and neither does any treaty have to do with it and that's a pretty fair observation.

Your circular reasoning doesn't hold water because it lacks factual basis.

He did have WMD and in fact we did find some recently. Just not the stockpiles we thought we'd find. But it's Saddam's fault we didn't know because part of his treaty violation was not providing full discolsure. That's fact.

none of the other points matter because of the above fact. Saddam did not do that which would have ended the war. He and he alone is the aggressor and he and he alone is responsible for everything that happened.

There's the circular reasoning, you can't use that ( "The war in Iraq was started by Saddam Hussein.") because it's not based on fact. We were intent on invading despite the outcome, no matter what Hussein did. There was no second resolution, there was no vote, there was no agreement, we couldn't get what we wanted officially (a 'legal invasion') so we invaded anyway. Other nations said wait because progress is being made, we said no that's not good enough because we need to invade now before it's too late. It's hard to say "Had we waited." because our intentions were already underway and we already knew the facts (i.e. no wmd's). The plans were already at work. It's just propersterous to even think of how this ordeal was concocted and how the likes of you continue to defend it without honestly looking at the facts. If Clinton or any other Dem did this there'd be hell to pay. That's my biggest beef is that you're not objective enough, you won't hold any crooked conservative politicians' feet to the fire (that's another argument).

What WMD? Where? The ones that the last 3 reports have confirmed there weren't? The only thing we could say about him was that he "might've" had he the same equipment 11-13 years ago. What of the pulling the WMD inspection teams (ISG, the 75th) earlier this year? Really, if I missed it let me know because I do read the news and I didn't hear a darned thing aboot it.

None of the other points matter because Saddam started this war? Or they don't matter because US foreign policy is f'd up anyway?

Roland...you need stop in your assertions that Bush is not the aggressor. Of course Bush is the aggressor. He may have been responding to Saddam Hussein, but he still made the decision to be the aggressor by attacking Iraq.

Bush did everything that he could to convince the country that Saddam was conntected to 9/11, that Saddam has WMD's, that Saddam was a threat, etc. The problem was that it was not true. It is beginning to look like Bush knew this. Bush wanted the intelligence to align with what he wanted to do, instead of the other way around.

Bush (and friends) is and was the aggressor in this situation.

Saddam did not do that which would have prevented the invasion. Deliberately and on purpose. regardless of how bad Bush wanted this madman deposed (which the world is better off for), it does not change the fact that Saddam started the war, Saddam broke the treaty daily for over a decade, and Saddam DELIBERATELY defied his last chance.

Saddam was the aggressor in startign the war, perpetuating the war, and rekindling the war. That's history. You can't go back in time and change what happened, although that would be nice.

*beep!! beep!! beep!!*

we've someone who's changing the facts and history to defend his position!

sorry, Roland, you can't use the mantra anymore - it just doesn't hold water.

It's what happened. You're the one trying to spin it after the fact with all these theories about WMD and Bush's pre-invasion plans and there is some truth to some of that, but it does not and will never change the fact that Saddam started the war and he puposefully did not do that which would have prevented the re-invasion.

You just can't get around that fact and that fact is what makes all of it Saddam's fault. And no, partial compliance does not count when FULL and IMMEDIATE compliance is what was required.

"He did have WMD and in fact we did find some recently."

I'm not the one who is pulling things out of my butt here. You go in circles on points that are no longer valid. I know when I was put on notice, I know when my unit was put on alert, and I know I was mobilized well ahead of the operation.

Johnson, Clark etc. will attest to the fact that it was preplanned. As I said and because of your refusal to read, it doesn't matter what Saddam did - we were intent on invading. Oil for food or no... it's a moot point and besides US companies are just as guilty with their hands in the cookie jar but we don't hear much aboot them do we?

Why do you insist on lying and pulling things out of your butt? That's something el rushbo is all too infamous for doing. Don't mean to get personal but when you out and out lie, you lose a lot of credibility (and respect).

*beep! beep! beep!*

This is a preemptive caution warning you about the coming factual distortion.

*beep! beep! beep*

From Roland that is! ;)

I haven't lied about anything. And you will never be able to get around the fact that Saddam Hussein did not do that which would have stopped the invasion. Whether or not we would have found another reason is speculation. What actually happened is that he made a conscious decision to defy his ultimatum.

And you will never be able to get around the fact that Saddam Hussein did not do that which would have stopped the invasion.

Roland...you cannot blame someone else for the your own actions. Especially when the other person's actions did not demand the response that you gave.

There is no question that Saddam was wrong in his actions. The question is whether Bush was wrong in his actions. I say that Bush was wrong. You just say that it is Saddam's fault.

Of course it was Saddam's fault. We said "do this or you will be invaded". He did not do this. Therefore....he was invaded!

"He did have WMD and in fact we did find some recently." = lie

It doesn't matter what Saddam would have done, we were invading anyway. Hence the rush with no second resolution, doing away with the inspections, all in all a hasty march to war. Saddam's ultimatum was basically 1.) leave and we're invading or 2.) we're invading.

And yet that speculation of what Bush MIGHT have done doesn't change what Saddam ACTUALLY DID.

/caps

You're refusing to read, to look at the facts and you're lying.

"He did have WMD and in fact we did find some recently." is a lie.

WMD and outlawed delivery systems WERE found. Just not the vast quantities that we expected. But we would have known if Saddam had done what he was supposed to do.

That's a lie.

The Duelfer Report

U.S. 'Almost All Wrong' on Weapons - Report on Iraq Contradicts Bush Administration Claims - WashingtonPost.com - 07OCT04

Report Finds No Evidence Syria Hid Iraqi Arms - WashingtonPost.com - 26APR05

It's very apparent to what lengths you will go just to be 'right' Roland.

I REMEMBER when they found the mobile labs and a few small stockpiles of gas. People like you were laughing because they weren't the enormous stockpiles that we expected, but to me it was proof of posession.

Can you jog my memory a bit Roland?

Mobile weapons labs were found buried in Iraq. Although they were worth over a million dollars, they were buried in the desert clearly marked so that they could be found again. Also we found outlawed scud missiles (boom, war justified right there), stored outside of a chemical plant.

And Saddam Hussein never accounted for (the reason for the invasion in the first place) 550 mustard gas projectiles, 450 aerial mustard gas bombs, with a total of 80 tons of unaccounted for mustard gas.

And his captured scientists say thatit's out there and was either buried or sent to Syria.

that's interesting, but I've cited sources which dispute what you're saying.

either you're lying or you're willfully ignorant.

i think you're doing both.

CNN.

So then you're lying because I can't find what you're talking aboot.

Dude I did a simple google search for "mobile weapons labs" and "scud" and I found a half dozen each. i REMEMBER when this all happened. i didn't print everything out and put it in a fileing cabinet.

"He did have WMD and in fact we did find some recently." Can you help prove this? I'm having a terrible time finding what you're talking aboot.

Tests rule out suspect bio-labs - KARBALA, Iraq (CNN) -- The buried labs U.S. troops found last week were not the mobile chemical and biological weapons labs one U.S. Army general suspected, according to the head of an expert team brought in to examine them. - CNN.com - 15APR05

Iraqi mobile labs nothing to do with germ warfare, report finds - Guardian Unlimited - 15JUN03

Chemicals Not Found in Iraq Warheads - WashingtonPost.com - 03JUL04

Oh. I remember at the time they were discovered that they WERE believed to be the mobile labs and that there WERE traces of banned chemicals in them.

But that still doesn't change the fact that they weren't accounted for, which was the point of all of this in the first place. Still Saddam's fault.

No, no traces. Nothing was found unless of course you can prove me wrong.

So we invaded because of scud missiles?

We invaded because of non-compliance.

British Intelligence Warned of Iraq War - Blair Was Told of White House's Determination to Use Military Against Hussein - WashingtonPost.com - 13MAY05

"We invaded because of non-compliance." You can't say this anymore though because as we now know from several verified sources the administration was bent on war (as I've said in the past).

Even I myself can tell you in early November of 2002 received word that my unit was on alert.

It just doesn't matter what Iraq would've done, besides they needed more time. Had they received more time we would've known there were no WMD's which was the reason for invasion; not "non-compliance".

By "they", I mean the UN.

Attempting to pin it on countries who were opposed to the war like France, Russia and Germany who were involved in the oil for food scandal won't work effectively either because we ourselves were tangled in it as well.

Don't forget the countries who opposed it and who weren't involved in the scandal either.

"He did have WMD and in fact we did find some recently."

Please clarify on that statement.

"We invaded because of non-compliance." You can't say this anymore though because as we now know from several verified sources the administration was bent on war (as I've said in the past).

Well you can speculate on that all you want, but what actually happened is that Iraq did not comply. The "more time" argument you keep reaching for has ben moot romt he very beginning because that is not what the words "immediately" and "fullly" mean.

You fail to cite your sources. I've cited a CIA report, personal testimonies, and various news sources all of which undercut what you say which can only mean one thing: you're lying.

That's why I keep asking you what you mean by this statement "He did have WMD and in fact we did find some recently." That's a lie.

This statement by you is a lie: "I remember at the time they were discovered that they WERE believed to be the mobile labs and that there WERE traces of banned chemicals in them."

All of this brings me to the point that you will go to great lengths to support your argument, you lie.

You could simply state you're mistaken but you won't - you keep lying. You skirt around the issue and you've no credibility, none because you're a liar.

You forget what the UN was saying, you forget the US dismissing the 2nd resolution, you forget the hasty march to war, you conveiently forget the Duelfer report, you conveniently forget testimonies, you forget the sources myself and Dave show you on a daily basis. Your argument comes from a person who's never stepped outside of the country, barely traveled the states, and claims to know what it's like in the military. Oh, and you lie... repeatedly.

This statement by you is a lie: "I remember at the time they were discovered that they WERE believed to be the mobile labs and that there WERE traces of banned chemicals in them."

This is not a lie because i DO remember that and furthermore, found the CNN article. It was last April. The fact that the mobile labs turned out to not be what we initially thought they were is a good point, but it ultimately does not change the undeniable and immutable fact that Saddam did not immediately and fully account for his weapons.

All the articles, testimony and speculation about Bush's motives all fall on their faces before that one indisputable fact. We gave Saddam 12 years (some rush) and an untimatum. he made a conscious decision to defy that ultimatum. So he got what was coming to him. it is impossible to blame anyone else besides him for his actions and inactions.

"This is not a lie because i DO remember that and furthermore, found the CNN article. It was last April."

Can you cite the article for me? I've yet to find it and I've scoured.

I'm not finished here yet, you're ignoring several reports and testimonies and you cherry pick your facts (frequently).

There's no speculating - read the memo.

Interesting how the argument has changed.

it's impossible for a nation to come up with something that doesn't exist. that's precisely why the ordeal was rushed so that we could invade.

it's complete nonsense to base tha argument soley on noncompliance because it's simply not worth the costs, especially when the pseudo-evidence is fabricated.

you're a republican, not a libertarian because if you were you'd see the nonsense.

you're not objective enough, you're too rank and file, party before the people. what a sham, what a shame.

I found these comments particularly helpful

I'm not objective, I'm conservative. but I'm more libertarian in principle than the Republicans because I don't believe in legislating morality.

""This is not a lie because i DO remember that and furthermore, found the CNN article. It was last April."

Can you cite the article for me? I've yet to find it and I've scoured."

Well it's a moot point because they turned out later to not be what we thought they were, but if you want me to prove the point that at one time, I did indeed hear a report that mobile weapons labs were found in Iraq, here ya go.

"KARBALA, Iraq (CNN) -- U.S. troops have found 11 mobile laboratories buried south of Baghdad that are capable of biological and chemical uses, a U.S. general said Monday. "

Right, which I already cited above. But you were so sure of yourself and you kept repeating it over and over which brings me to this point: there were *no* weapons. None.

So we invaded because Saddam didn't fully and immediately comply. How's come you don't give credit to Hans Blix? What exactly did he have to lose? What did Scott Ritter have to lose?

Blix and Ritter were part of the problem, not the solution. They would have let Saddam keep stalling and playing games. After 9/11, we don't play games anymore. Full and immediate compliance. Nothing less.

What was Saddam's threat exactly? He had no WMD's, he wasn't even a threat to nearby countries.

What did Blix and Ritter stand to gain or lose? Why exactly were they part of the problem? How so exactly?

How was Iraq more of a threat than Saudi, Pakistan, Iran, or NK?

Full and immediate compliance is a poor argument especially when it's fact US policy was bent on going.

How were 9/11 and Iraq tied together?

After 9/11, we decided that it was time to stop toying around with the bad guys and show the world that we weren't going to put up with any shenanigans. Saddam had been toying with us for well over a decade event hough he had lost the war that he had started. Taking him out eliminated one enemy, while giving us a military foothold in a strategic area, and also sent a strong message to the other bad guys that we're done playing games.

And it was all justified because after all, Saddam DID defy his ultimatum.

Just think of how screwed we would be if Saddam HAD immediately and fully complied. If we were hellbent on invasion (and I'm not arguing that we were not), we would have had to come up with something ridiculous to justify invasion and THEN, AND THEN you and Dave might have a point.

But he didn't immediately and fully comply.

Something ridiculous like ties to al-Qaeda? Or something ridiculous like thinking Iraq is building a nuke?

Now that we've found out that their were no WMD and there were no nukes, doesn't it make you wonder if the sanctions were actually working?

That's just it, they were working as far as not preventing the capabilities for wreapons of mrass drestruction.



"and I'm not arguing that we were not), we would have had to come up with something ridiculous to justify invasion and THEN, AND THEN you and Dave might have a point.

But he didn't immediately and fully comply."

Hanx Blix and the rest of the UN team thought Hussein was complying. You see, the US was looking for any excuse - when the Blix kept repeating there was nothing and that we'd be invading for nothing US foreign policy tried to discredit them. We said "Fear the mushroom cloud" but we had them exactly where we wanted them: under direct pressure from all sides. Blix kept stating that his operation barely got off the ground. Sure, it's going to be a dirty process; it's democracy and working with nearly every other nation in the world but the UN was finally doing it's job because of direct US and British pressure. It was a good thing. Our policy went so far as to discredit the IAEA, the UN and many other reports. We even went so far as to shut up the media and those of the administration who weren't rank and file.

And we were hellbent on invasion, that's why intelligence was stretched, that's why they lied - they needed a good reason and it sounded good then but unfortunately they did a heck of a good job getting themselves into it. It doesn't matter what Iraq would have done (complied or no) the US was invading.

Now we're faced with retention problems, recruiting problems, building 4 new bases over there whilst we're closing down some here, lacking the gravitas that we actually had before among many other things. This is essentially why I side with Generals Anthony Zinni and Wes Clark on this issue.

US military to build four giant new bases in Iraq - Guardian.co.uk - 23MAY05

Army misses recruiting goal - USAToday.com - 03MAR05

I'm not sure if you're familiar with Ron Paul, he's a represenative here in TX and even ran for president before on the Libertarian ticket a while back. Here's what he had to say:
QUESTIONS THAT WON'T BE ASKED ABOUT IRAQ - House.Gov/Paul - 10SEPT02 Interestingly enough that was back in 2002 (nearly 3 years ago) and rings true today. I wonder what we'll find out the next few years.

Iraq: how we were duped - What we told vs. What we know now

Roland, I've read everything that was said here, and all the links. and you are completely 100% wrong.

What i would like to know, cause i think it might of slipped your mind is.....wassup with the gas prices, man, i don't know but since we took all that oil why we paying so much, do they really have to rob us all....I thought it was We The People, For The People, By The People not We The People, For The People, F*** The People.

Sorry...but this comment does not make any sense in relation to the above post and comments. Care to clarify?

Just trying to make simple conversation.

As a Naturalistic Pagan, I don't believe in Satan. But if I did, I think George W. Bush would be about as close to the anti-christ as one could get.