Stuffthatwouldneverhappen.net?
Or maybe he means this site, since that’s what he just theorized. 
That would be a nice update on ‘my post is my cite.’
Complete nonsense. Everyone knows fried eyeballs are a light snack, not a breakfast.
He stopped eating childrens’ eyeballs when he found out they were low in cholesterol.
Yeah, why would a fine, upstanding citizen (and a Democrat!) invade and occupy a foreign nation? They never do that. Especially a hardliner hawk like Gore, who had wanted to destroy Saddam for a decade, and who only found his inner dove after Bush’s misadventure went tits up. He was probably pissed that Bush was such a dumbass, along with the usual factional politics. Gore would’ve probably done a better job too, maybe we’d be working on another country by now.
For the same reason Bush I stopped where he did, and the same reason that Clinton refused: it was a stupid thing to do. The PNAC scum had to wait for a President who was an amoral fool before they could get their fantasy indulged.
My bet is Victorious Unity, and the theory was accompanied by a huge hi-res picture of General John Pershing.
But really, since Gore actually gave a speech in September 2002 which pretty much said that war in Iraq would make the US look like a warmonger, I think that question can be put to bed.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2002-09-23-gore-text_x.htm
Not wanting to give too much credit to some website somewhere on the internets’s theory, but Gore shifted substantially to the left once he was no longer a member of the government. He was pretty hawkish (for a Democrat) as a Senator and VP. While it’s possible that once he actually became President he still would have made that shift to the left, I think it’s pretty unlikely.
(Which leaves open the question of whether he would have gone to war with Iraq, but that’s another story.)
Really, we managed to resurrect several hundred thousand Iraqi’s from the dead? No wonder Republicans say we have the best healthcare in the world.
In that case, who the hell is guilty for those deaths?
http://afamilyinbaghdad.blogspot.com/
QIN, read about just the damage we did to the Iraqi educational system. I know you are a believer, but our war did a lot 0of damage to a rather progressive middle east country.
When we invaded, over half the college students were women. They worked outside the home, drove and could wear western clothes if they wished. We made a mess . The educated fled. The schools were destroyed. The infrastructure trashed and many thousands died.
Saddam was their problem.
The 2003 misadventure in Iraq was not a Dove-vs-Hawk matter, but Smart-vs-Stupid. Saddam’s Iraq was boxed up and little threat, certainly not worth the grave risks of that War. Richard Haass is a hawkish Neo-con intellectual who actually has an intellect: Google to see his opinions on that War.
Anyone who claims the likelihood of a poor outcome from that war is clear only in hindsight was not reading competent periodicals in 2002.
(I’ve added a “(sic)” to “left” in the quote above, as the conflation of dovish and leftish seems inappropriate.)
I didn’t say I believe in it. It was theorize on another forum,
The sectarian militias who slaughtered each other.
With hindsight, I don’t believe I would have supported an Iraq invasion under the circumstances of 2003. However we speak from the comfort of eight years later.
Then why did the majority of the Democrats in the Senate support the war?
For that matter the majority of news sources supported the war also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Iraq_War_Media_Sources_Opinion_Percentage.svg
And? You could probably find a claim that Gore is an alien on another forum. You say you don’t support it and won’t even explain the supposed reasons for believing such an implausible thing, so why bring it up?
And who did so because we created the conditions for it. And they are hardly the only cause of all the death and destruction.
The inevitably disastrous results were obvious before the invasion. It didn’t take hindsight.
Because they are spineless cowards.
Because the media is heavily right wing.
We made the slaughter possible. Or are you claiming there were no collateral deaths due to our mishandling of an unnecessary war? Do you have like a filling station where you go for refills of the Kool-Ade?
Once you have committed to a war, everybody in the public eye has to back it or get ostracized. The media all backed the war parading out retired general after retired general who told us what a great idea it was. They omitted telling about their jobs as working for defense contractors . The news stations were all afraid to be the only one who didn’t back it. Phil Donahue got broomed for speaking against it.
U.S. Grant told about the Spanish/American war in his autobiography. He mentioned any politician who was actively against the war, once we were committed ,would sacrifice his career.
War fever makes us all cowards.
You do know this discussion is about the war in Afghanistan, right?
-XT
He did? Crap, then who really is buried in Grant’s tomb?
Grant died in 1885, the Spanish-American War was in 1898. You mean the Mexican-American War.
Asked and answered. Let me try again with a larger font:
The Bush Administration misrepresented CIA analyses. More simply put, they lied. Unsuspecting Senators and media didn’t grasp that the Bush Adminiostration could be so confused, stupid and cynical.
Wrong. The discussion here is now about the Iraq War. Thread title and OP are about the Afghanistan War. Going “off-topic” may tend to derail debate, but then so does stifling (because they’re “off-topic”) discussion of matters that participants find relevant.
Qin, do me a favor and watch (or better yet, read) Generation Kill. Then come back to this discussion (remember to bring pie)
Plenty of dudes were against it back in 2003, with plenty of good arguments. Hell, the UN itself was against it with good arguments - but y’all just dismissed them as blind & cowardly pussies.
Sorry, but you don’t get to say “oh well, honest mistake innit ? We all made it.” today.