Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: NUKE on June 09, 2004, 11:15:15 PM
-
What the worst part of the Iraq war has been.
Can anyone list what has been detrimental to either thier country, the world, Iraq or Iraqis?
What makes you guys so angry over the war in Iraq? Can you list some reasons?
-
Sure.
For myself, it boils down to this:
It was GW that actually issued the order to send in US troops.
He was the commander, he made the final decision. He is accountable.
I didn't say he lied, I didn't say he misled anyone.
However, many of us here were in the military. If someone screws up a decision, that someone is taken to task.
He made the decision to spend American lives to get those WMD. 850+ have died and no sign of any WMD.
It's possilbe the WMD were in Iraq and were moved to Syria, so two things:
1. With the world's best military, he failed to stop the WMD from getting out of Iraq. IE: shoulda hit them ASAP.
2. If the WMD ARE in Syria, aren't they just as large, if not a larger threat, than they were in Iraq? Cripes, the Syrians are swapping spit with all the major Palestinian terrorist groups. So, if we knew they were in Syria, why didn't we turn left and go get them when we had the troops/equipment there? Are they suddenly not a threat in Syria?
I can't let this go, sorry. His decision led directly to the deaths of 850 of our finest. HIS decision.
That's why I'm not voting for him. That's what I see as "detrimental to my country".
I'm guessing though you'll get a lot of answers that basically boil down to "there's nothing worth dying for". I don't hold with that opinion; I think John Stuart Mill had it right about those guys.
-
I can give you 827 reasons. (http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,FL_reserves_060904,00.html)
-
Toad I see where you are coming from, but what was the alternative?
I mostly was aiming my post at anti-American people with blinders on.
Here is my truthfull opinion: The war had to be done, no way around it. Maybe we could have put more troops in, but so far it has been a sucess and it will prove to be good for the US and Iraq.
-
And Toad, the fact that no one knew what Iraq actually had as far as WMD, coupled with the fact that we could never know, as long as Saddam was in charge, was good enough reason for me.
-
Well, Nuke, we disagree.
We invaded a sovereign country and to date have not found any evidence supporting our reason for doing so. Maybe it is in Syria; see above for what I think of that.
Not good enough for me, sorry.
-
Here's the biggest reason Iraq was a mistake.
(http://www.onlineathens.com/images/090903/osama.jpg)
He's still out there... planning the next wave...
-
His time will come too.
He's had a few "near misses" with eternity already.
This goal is totally justified.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
That begs the question: Why?
Because Iraq did not comply with it's cease-fire agreements and refused to cooperate and account for it's WMD. It was Saddam's war to prevent, and he had all the time and power to prevent it but chose not to. Saddam chose to let the world guess about weather or not he was complying.
Now Iraq will be free and nobody can tell me Iraq is worse off without him.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Well, Nuke, we disagree.
We invaded a sovereign country and to date have not found any evidence supporting our reason for doing so. Maybe it is in Syria; see above for what I think of that.
Not good enough for me, sorry.
Toad, I rest my sole judgement on this matter based on the fact that the whole world assumed Iraq had WMD and that as long as Saddam was in charge and refused to cooperate, it was anyone's guess as to weather or not he had them. A risk I don't want to take considereding his past.
Saddam could have easily dispelled all doubts, but refused.
I say good call.
-
Nobody can tell you, because you've already made up your mind.
-SW
-
Nuke, the lesson I took from VietNam was that you can't "make other people free". They have to want it bad enough to die for it themselves.
Yeah, we're going to "make them free". For a while; maybe even a decade or so. But it's a coin toss whether or not they stay that way.
Personally, I don't think it was worth one US soldier's life to "make them free". If they were really that miserable, they'd have killed the bassich themselves somehow.
Told ya I was in a cranky mood tonight.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Iraq had no cease-fire agreement with the US. Iraq stated they had destroyed the WMD. Iraq cooperated with the UN inspection teams before they were ordered out by the US.
I wonder who first ordered the inspectors out of Iraq? I wonder what country made Iraq take the inspectors back?
LOL!
The only reason Iraq allowes inspectors back was the US military threat, and even then Iraq played games and didn't comply.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Nuke, the lesson I took from VietNam was that you can't "make other people free". They have to want it bad enough to die for it themselves.
Yeah, we're going to "make them free". For a while; maybe even a decade or so. But it's a coin toss whether or not they stay that way.
Personally, I don't think it was worth one US soldier's life to "make them free". If they were really that miserable, they'd have killed the bassich themselves somehow.
Told ya I was in a cranky mood tonight.
Toad, the goal was not to make Iraqi's free and I never said I thought that should be the goal. The goal was to ensure that they didn't have WMD, which almost everyone assumed they had....due to Saddam's games. I say it was a good call to make sure.
-
There are several nations in the region that are a more real and severe threat, leave them be while we attack Iraq why?
-SW
-
If they moved them to Syria, I think we may be worse off than we were.
-
Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
There are several nations in the region that are a more real and severe threat, leave them be while we attack Iraq why?
-SW
What inteligence do you personally have to back that up? Maybe you use 20/20 hindsight?
What inteligence source do you have that can explain what threat Iraq was, pre-war, compaired to the others you sight?
-
LOL, Scholz, I've held that view since 1975 at a minimum.
How long have you held it? I think you came around to a long-held view of mine, sonny.
;)
-
Iraq was the same threat to us as a tit mouse. Saddam was on the outs with Osama, yeah I know... we've found evidence Al Qaeda was training in an area of Iraq - but was never supported by Saddam.
Iraq would have gotten their weapons here how? An Iraqi zealot? Man, after 11 years I'm surprised they didn't get us!
Anyway, it matters not.
What intelligence source do you have that proves Iraq was any form of a threat to US? Not its neighbors, US.
I mean, who attacked us? Oh right, Saudi Arabians trained in Afghanistan. Who else could attack us, and would love to? Oh right, Syrians, Iranians, Palistineans (our support for Isreal hasn't gone unnoticed, but they'll stay put... I'm sure).
Of course, this thread was started for no reason other than for you to see other people's reasons and you could downplay them as insignificant or moot because you do not agree.
-SW
-
Originally posted by Toad
If they moved them to Syria, I think we may be worse off than we were.
Naw... if we attack Syria, they'll just move 'em again. ;)
-
Originally posted by Toad
LOL, Scholz, I've held that view since 1975 at a minimum.
How long have you held it? I think you came around to a long-held view of mine, sonny.
;)
Toad, can you even aknowledge that Iraq was an unknown and very real threat? It was not about liberation, it was about making damn sure Iraq didn't have WMD.....which the world assumed they had.
Liberation was a benifit of the war, the real reason was to ensure Iraq had no WMD...... GOOD CALL!
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Toad, can you even aknowledge that Iraq was an unknown and very real threat?
Toad might, but I wouldn't. ;)
-
Were you even alive in '75? If so, we'll talk about who held that belief the longest. (BTW, I've got the "alive in '75 ribbon too.)
I've got this feeling you're a "Johnny Come Lately" compared to me.
Kid. ;)
I think perhaps the problem is that folks try to "pigeonhole" me as the standard "right wing American".
Like most Americans, I'm not a "standard" anything.
One of the greatest characteristics of the "average American" is that he believes he's not "average" or "standard". He's an individual. ;)
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Naw... if we attack Syria, they'll just move 'em again. ;)
My opinion is that the Syrians may be a more likely conduit to Arab terrorist types than SH was.
Discussing an invasion of Syria would be another thread for sure.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Toad, can you even aknowledge that Iraq was an unknown and very real threat?
Sure, I think it was a threat. But IF they had the weapons, we sure didn't take them off the market, now did we?
If the weapons are in fact now in Syria, we really didn't do what we set out to do, did we?
Because if those weapons were an "unknown and very real threat" in Iraq, what exactly are they now in Syria?
Did 800+ of our finest die to get those weapons moved a few hundred miles into Syria then?
Again, Syria is not exactly our friend and it's clear they DO have ties to Islamic extremist groups that have shown a willingness to die in terror attacks on Israel. And who do they think is Israel's biggest supporter?
See the problem yet? We didn't do ship about any weapons that may have been in Iraq.
But we lost 800+ kids doing it.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Were you even alive in '75? If so, we'll talk about who held that belief the longest. (BTW, I've got the "alive in '75 ribbon too.)
I've got this feeling you're a "Johnny Come Lately" compared to me.
Kid. ;)
I think perhaps the problem is that folks try to "pigeonhole" me as the standard "right wing American".
Like most Americans, I'm not a "standard" anything.
One of the greatest characteristics of the "average American" is that he believes he's not "average" or "standard". He's an individual. ;)
I'm not trying to pigeonhole you as anything...just trying basic logic.
I was alive as of 1964 for whatever that matters.
In a nutshell: Iraq was an unknown threat with known WMD capabilites ( in fact used them)
Iraq refused to fully comply with inspectors and kept the world guessing.
Toad, I believe Iraq and the US is going to be better for this effort. I'm not sure why you have such a negative view regarding the final outcome.
-
Eight-plus years after the fact is a pretty good stretch for "known" I think.
-
Some of the BBS smartest people are debating this thread......minus Sandman, Gsholtz, and AksWulf.
Ahh hahahah, just kidding guys :)
-
If you don't stand up and fight for your own freedom you're not worthy of freedom.
Even the weak and infirm are worthy of freedom.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
I'm not sure why you have such a negative view regarding the final outcome.
"Alive in 75" was for Scholz. Refers to this:
(http://www.americal.org/awards/ndsm.gif)
Again, here's my reason for such a negative view:
See the problem yet? We didn't do ship about any weapons that may have been in Iraq. They may just be in Syria right now which, IMO, is worse.
But we lost 800+ kids doing it.
-
Originally posted by Steve
Even the weak and infirm are worthy of freedom.
Yeah, Steve, yer right.
But if their strong and healthy countrymen don't want to fight to get it for them, why should the sons of American mothers do it for them?
-
Hey! I nevar pritinted ta bee smert!
-SW
-
Originally posted by Toad
"Alive in 75" was for Scholz. Refers to this:
(http://www.americal.org/awards/ndsm.gif)
Again, here's my reason for such a negative view:
See the problem yet? We didn't do ship about any weapons that may have been in Iraq. They may just be in Syria right now which, IMO, is worse.
But we lost 800+ kids doing it.
Toad, what exactly are you saying? Are you saying attack Syria or are you saying sit back and do nothing about suspected threats? By even suggesting Syria has Iraq's WMD, you are admitting Iraq was a percieved threat.
Are you for a war against Syria Toad?
We did the only logical thing in Iraq and time will tell regarding Syria.
-
Nuke,
If the Iraqis had WMD, we sure didn't remove them did we? Wasn't that the object of the exercise? How is that "mission accomplished"?
IF the Iraqi WMD are in Syria, that situation is worse than when they were in Iraq under SH.
Syria does have direct ties to Islamic terrorists. Proven, direct ties. Home of Hezbollah and all that.
So you tell me.
If they were such a serious threat in Iraq, what should we do now that they're in Syria?
-
Sometimes it an be difficult to argue with a pre-1965 smart arse, but I'm sticking to logic.
-
I'm not saying they should, at least not without the local "fighters" standing shoulder to shoulder. Problem there could be that in Iraq, how do you tell friend form foe that is not in a U.S. or coalition uniform?
The fact is that this area of the world is, among many things, unstable and therefore a ripe breeding ground for terrorists. I doubt even that whacko Gsholz would argue that Hussein was violently oppressing his own people with rape, murder and torture.
To argue tha there were more serious threats to the U.S. is just plain foolish. Example:
Terrorsits were/are our most immediate threat and NK is not breeding terrorists to the degree that the middle East is.
Some argue that we are creating terrorists by having a military presence in Iraq. I bet that is true. I ask, how can one reasonable expect every single person to be happy about any given scenario, even utopia? There will always be malcontents who blame their lot in life on someone else.
So, why not topple the Iraqi regime and at the same time try to bring some stability into the area which is the biggest threat to the world? Sure it's risky, but think of the upside.
The possibility to bring some stability to the area and a strong ally against the inhumane govts in the Middle East should be ample reason to take the risks the coalition did.*
Few of the naysayers are considering that we, in spite of their doomsaying, may just be successful in Iraq. What then? What will Gsholz and his unhinged cronies say then? Will they say "well done!" No, like the malcontents in Iraq, they will continue to rail against the U.S. and her allies.
I say let them scream their indignance, while the bulk of Iraqi's bask in the warnth of freddom that you and I greet each day as a given.
-
Not unless they are willing to die for it.
That's now what some very wise men said over 200 years ago.
They did not qualify this right to freedom. I'll side with their opinion, not that of a radical whacko like you.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Nuke,
If the Iraqis had WMD, we sure didn't remove them did we? Wasn't that the object of the exercise? How is that "mission accomplished"?
IF the Iraqi WMD are in Syria, that situation is worse than when they were in Iraq under SH.
Syria does have direct ties to Islamic terrorists. Proven, direct ties. Home of Hezbollah and all that.
So you tell me.
If they were such a serious threat in Iraq, what should we do now that they're in Syria?
Okay, you say "WMD" may be in Syria? That Implies that "they" where in Iraq...right?
You are against the war in Iraq , yet think Iraq's WMD may be in Syria?
So what is you solution?
-
Originally posted by Steve
To argue tha there were more serious threats to the U.S. is just plain foolish. Example:
Terrorsits were/are our most immediate threat and NK is not breeding terrorists to the degree that the middle East is.
Ahem... Saudi Arabia.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
That begs the question: Why?
Well I suppose we coulda contained him. Like north Korea.
That has worked out rather well dontcha think?
LOL
Far as Im concerned WMD or no WMD Iraq was the next logical step in the war on terror. And at some point we had to deal with the Iraq issue sooner or later anyway.
I mean lets face it. I dont think anyone had more of a reason to support an attack on us more then Saddam. And I certainly would not have put it past him to send an attack on us. Actually I saw it as only a matter of when not if.
Waiting just doesnt to me seem prudent.
-
Does this man look strong?
yes, a man if iron willed principles. Strong indeed.
-
Mission Accomplished in Iraq. Tell me otherwise.
-
Maybe I'm just pre-65 smart.
Ever think of that?
(Oops. Guess that remark makes me a smart-arse! ;) )
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
Far as Im concerned WMD or no WMD Iraq was the next logical step in the war on terror. And at some point we had to deal with the Iraq issue sooner or later anyway.
Logic? Okay... you're entitled to your opinion. Some of us have trouble with your logic though.
I mean lets face it. I dont think anyone had more of a reason to support an attack on us more then Saddam.
How about the people that actually performed the attack?
-
Ahem... Saudi Arabia.
Sandman, if one were extremely myopic, whether by lack of wisdom or a matter of convenience to espouse their politically canted view of things, this would seem clever indeed.
However, Saudi Arabia is not training terrosits nor supplying them(as far as we know to date) w/ comfort, arms, and training as we know Iraq was doing.
Iraq was, directly in some cases, indirectly in others.
Additionally, Saudi Arabia is in the Middle East, is it not?
Did I not argue that since the threat is in the Middle East this is where we should be?
-
Nobody can argue with me on an equal level if they do not base their arguments on solid logic, or if I do not get too drunk.
-
If the mission was to eliminate their WMD, it's not accomplished.
Unless you think maybe we should invade Fiji and eliminate theirs too.
If it was to eliminate SH, that we did. But that's not why we ostensibly went, correct?
-
Originally posted by Toad
If the mission was to eliminate their WMD, it's not accomplished.
Unless you think maybe we should invade Fiji and eliminate theirs too.
If it was to eliminate SH, that we did. But that's not why we ostensibly went, correct?
I will tell you for at least the 2nd time: the mission was to ensure Iraq did not harbor WMD. Mission accomplished.
-
If that was the mission, we still haven't done it.
You saw the buried MiGs. The amount of anthrax they were supposed to have had would have fit entirely in the same hole they dug to bury a MiG-25.
Are you assuring me there's none buried anywhere in Iraq? Are you assuring me that when they ask us to leave....... and they will...... that they won't go dig some up somewhere we haven't looked?
You ASSUME we "made sure". There's absolutely no proof of that.
Logically.
-
Our mission was to find those WMDs and ensure they could not fall into other's hands.
Unless we find they never existed, mission failed... actually, mission failed either way because we have destroyed our integrity.
-SW
-
If it was to eliminate SH, that we did. But that's not why we ostensibly went, correct?
Incorrect. We specifically went to remove SH from power and to remove his regimes' ability to wage war.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
And Toad, the fact that no one knew what Iraq actually had as far as WMD, coupled with the fact that we could never know, as long as Saddam was in charge, was good enough reason for me.
Besides we know that at one point he did have them and was willing to use them.
We know this because he used them.
It would be foolish to take Saddam at his word that he no longer possesed them.
Couple other points. It is my understanding that the amount of some of the stuff we are looking for can be stored in an area no larger then a two car garage. Simply because alot of stuff you do not need huge stokpiles of to be more then effective. Take a substance like anthrax for example. Just a litle bit can pack an awful large punch.
It would be hard enough to find ina small town let And your now trying to find it in an entire country.
Also some stuf the components alone prove nothing untill they are put together.
Just as Amonia and bleach for another example. Independant of one another you would think nothing of them. But mix them together and you have some pretty nasty stuff..
-
Originally posted by Toad
If that was the mission, we still haven't done it.
You saw the buried MiGs. The amount of anthrax they were supposed to have had would have fit entirely in the same hole they dug to bury a MiG-25.
Are you assuring me there's none buried anywhere in Iraq? Are you assuring me that when they ask us to leave....... and they will...... that they won't go dig some up somewhere we haven't looked?
You ASSUME we "made sure". There's absolutely no proof of that.
Logically.
Toad, would you be more content if we had not invaded?
I saw the buried mig..found only after we invaded. Are you not happy that we found that mig?
Anthrax? Maybe you would prefer Saddam control that? As is stands, Iraq is contained.....no?
-
No NUKE. The mission was to remove the threat of Iraqi WMD that your government said it had proof existed in large quantities and was battlefield ready.
No, it wasn't.
-
said it had proof existed in large quantities and was battlefield ready.
Really? where did the U.S say that?
-
Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
Unless we find they never existed, mission failed-SW
No.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence
-
I'm just saddened that I have to use my intelect against the likes of Toad ...
-
All his weapons, spare nuclear, have a very limited shelf life.
Steve, we (American public) were sold on WMDs... not on removing SH from power.
-SW
-
Originally posted by Steve
Sandman, if one were extremely myopic, whether by lack of wisdom or a matter of convenience to espouse their politically canted view of things, this would seem clever indeed.
However, Saudi Arabia is not training terrosits nor supplying them(as far as we know to date) w/ comfort, arms, and training as we know Iraq was doing.
Iraq was, directly in some cases, indirectly in others.
Additionally, Saudi Arabia is in the Middle East, is it not?
Did I not argue that since the threat is in the Middle East this is where we should be?
Hmmm... speaking of myopia... most of the 911 hijackers were Saudi, there are terrorist camps in Saudi Arabia, many members of Al-Qaeda are Saudi, and the Al-Qaeda was in fact largely funded with Saudi oil money.
BUT... the political risk is too high. Let's invade Iraq, a pissant country ruled by a pissant dictator. No political risk here. We might piss off France. :eek:
-
Drediock, if I have to spell that statement out - kindly step away from the keyboard and this thread.
"Unless we find they never existed"
Clearly that indicates we FOUND evidence they never existed.
-SW
-
Removing SH was not one of the pre-war stated goals. I challenge you to find a quote of Bush saying that throughout the discussion period in the UN.
Yes, right now, I'd be much happier if we had not invaded.
Anthrax? Are YOU happier now that it is either:
A) non-existent and never was there
B) still there but we don't know where it is
C) in Syria, where the government is very chummy with know Islamic terrorist organizations
?
Iraq contained? Pretty much for now. Tell me how it will be after we leave. Because we're gonna leave and it will be shorter rather than longer.
-
All his weapons, spare nuclear, have a very limited shelf life.
Yes, so if he buried them all and they decay under ground because Hussein is no longer in power, it not that the elimination of the threat of him using/distributing WMD?
Hey, I'm like you, I'd like to see the coalition dig up tons of WMD.
Please remember France, Germany, the U.N, and others said repeatedly that Iraq possessed WMD.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
I'm just saddened that I have to use my intelect against the likes of Toad ...
Well, go ahead and trot it out then. Let's see it.
-
there are terrorist camps in Saudi Arabia,
Really? were is this shown? discussed?
-
Nite time for me.
Cyas tomorrow.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Well, go ahead and trot it out then. Let's see it.
for starters, you say that Iraqs WMD may be in Syria, yet you also say the war against Iraq was based on a "lie" regarding WMD
We can proceed from here if you like.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Nite time for me.
Cyas tomorrow.
Dont go.......
-
Originally posted by Steve
Really? were is this shown? discussed?
Thursday, 15-Jan-2004 4:10AM Story from United Press International
Copyright 2004 by United Press International (via ClariNet)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIYADH, Saudi Arabia, Jan. 15 (UPI) -- Saudi security forces discovered desert camps outside major cities used for arms and explosives training for terrorists, reports said.
An official security source who requested anonymity, was quoted Thursday in the Saudi daily Okaz as saying the clandestine military camps were commanded by terrorists wanted by the Saudi authorities. Two of the terrorists reportedly were killed in the last year.
"Security agencies have proofs they were going into the desert to get military training and these camps were set up specifically for that purpose," the source said.
He said the authorities have discovered the locations of all these camps as well as the training programs that were being offered.
"Certain commanders of these camps are still at large and the security forces are deploying maximum efforts to get to them," he added.
The source said arms, explosives and ammunition were confiscated from the camps.
-
Right Steve, but the problem I forsee is that most of his weapons came prior 1991. Most of his weapons, spare nuclear of course, were limited to something like 6 years max in proper storage.
I'd love to see our troops find even a limited cache of these things and they still be active, I'd sleep much better at night. However, to date we haven't found much of anything that reinforces our reasons.
Just me of course, I'd feel horrible if our integrity went south due to this.
-SW
-
I proclaim victory!
-
Originally posted by NUKE
I proclaim victory!
Works for me. :aok
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Logic? Okay... you're entitled to your opinion. Some of us have trouble with your logic though.
How about the people that actually performed the attack?
Ok would you rather have waited to be attacked again before we did anything?
I personally would rather kill a rattlesnake first before I wait around to see if he bites me first.
Not saying they had less of a reason. But they certainly had no more of a reason.
-
I must say Toad, I never figured on butting heads with you, but man, you really seemed to have a view about Iraq that seems short-sighted at best.
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
I personally would rather kill a rattlesnake first before I wait around to see if he bites me first.
If you give the rattlesnake room to retreat, it will. It's more afraid of you than you are of it.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
If you give the rattlesnake room to retreat, it will. It's more afraid of you than you are of it.
What if that rattlesnake hade a nuke in its bellly? Would you leave it alone?
-
I challenge you to find a quote of Bush saying that throughout the discussion period in the UN.
Bush on Husseins regime, before we invaded Iraq.
Anything they choose will be better than the misery and torture and murder they have known under Saddam Hussein.
He(sic) tortures his own people. He's a murderer
I'm convinced that a liberated Iraq will be -- will be important for that troubled part of the world.
We care about the suffering of the Iraqi people.
The first to benefit from a free Iraq would be the Iraqi people, themselves. Today they live in scarcity and fear, under a dictator who has brought them nothing but war, and misery, and torture. Their lives and their freedom matter little to Saddam Hussein -- but Iraqi lives and freedom matter greatly to u
-
Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
Drediock, if I have to spell that statement out - kindly step away from the keyboard and this thread.
"Unless we find they never existed"
Clearly that indicates we FOUND evidence they never existed.
-SW
My bad. Misread
-
Thank you Sandman. The difference here is that Hussein was directly or indirectly allowing/supporting terrosit camps. It appears by that article that the Saudi Govt was taking steps to stamp out the camps.
-
Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons.
George W. Bush
September 12, 2002
Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent.
George W. Bush
January 28, 2003
We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have.
George W. Bush
February 8, 2003
Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.
George W. Bush
March 17, 2003
---
Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction.
Dick Cheney
August 26, 2002
We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction, is determined to make more.
Colin Powell
February 5, 2003
-
Sand, forgive my dull mind tonight, what was the point of your last post?
-
Originally posted by Toad
If the mission was to eliminate their WMD, it's not accomplished.
Unless you think maybe we should invade Fiji and eliminate theirs too.
If it was to eliminate SH, that we did. But that's not why we ostensibly went, correct?
Bush said, and I quote, "If you support, train, harbor, pay for, supply, or provide aide comfort and succor for terrorism, you are a candidate for regime change". Notice there was nothing vahue or ambiguous about that statement. Notice that he DID NOT say that in order to qualify for regime change you had to possess weapons of mass destruction.
Saddam Hussien harbored terrorists from Abu Nidal on down to the lowest level operatives. Saddam Hussien did in fact pay $25K to the families of suicide bomers in Israel. There were in fact terrorists, and high ranking ones in fact, who were known to have participated in about 90% of the top 100 largest and most notorious acts of terrorism, in Iraq at the time the invasion was launched. There is a laundry list of known major league terrorists captured in Iraq in the last 14 months that I have posted here at least a dozen times. Of particular note, terrorists known to have taken part in the Achille Lauro incident and the bombing of Pan Am flight 103 have in fact been captured in Iraq. That's just two major incidents that at least some of the organizers and perpetrators of have been captured in Iraq. Lest we forget, on public television broadcast all over the planet, Saddam offered $25K to the family of any terrorists willing to blow himself up to kill Americans or Israeli Jews. It is a matter of public record he paid off on the killing by suicide bomb of Israeli Jews.
Regarding the Weapons of Mass Distraction, the lead up and build up to the invasion lasted damned near 2 full years, because Bush tried to get co operation from any number of countries and the United Numbnuts. Saddam had plenty of time to do whatever he wanted to with them. And yet, illegal long range missiles were found, in numbers, in Iraq. With warhead cases designed to deliver chemical and bilogoical weapons. There have been at least ten incidents of chemical weapons being found in small quantities.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
If you give the rattlesnake room to retreat, it will. It's more afraid of you than you are of it.
LOL I have a buddy that might argue that point with you.
He tried that with one and it ended up chasing him.
But with Saddam even though he may back down publically I doubt very much it would have stopped him form attacking covertly.
I've known people like this
-
Originally posted by Steve
Sand, forgive my dull mind tonight, what was the point of your last post?
WMD. ;)
-
Well, certainly WMD was a major reason we went in.
Are you saying that since we didn't find much in the way of WMD that Hussein didn't possess any?
-
Originally posted by Sandman
---
There was alot of Democrats that pretty much were saying the same thing during the Clinton administration including clinton himself
sombody put a post of it up once a while back
-
Originally posted by Steve
Well, certainly WMD was a major reason we went in.
Are you saying that since we didn't find much in the way of WMD that Hussein didn't possess any?
It certainly doesn't appear so.
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
There was alot of Democrats that pretty much were saying the same thing during the Clinton administration including clinton himself
sombody put a post of it up once a while back
The buck stops in the Oval.
-
If you give the rattlesnake room to retreat, it will. It's more afraid of you than you are of it.
A rattlesnake has no inherent malice or evil intent, no real intelligence.
If you imbue a rattlesnake with intelligence and the desire to do you harm, I bet you just might wake up one night w/ this same snake having embedded its fangs into one of your testicles.
If you knew the rattler had the intelligence and desire to do you harm, would you not put a shovel to it?
-
I think Spiderman can beat the hell out of Batman. :D
-
It certainly doesn't appear so.
Would you consider that he might have hidden/buried what he had? Shipped it to Syria?
-
George Orwell couldnt have invented a more obsured military action then the invasion of Iraq by the US. But the defense of it here would fit right in 1984
-
Originally posted by Steve
Would you consider that he might have hidden/buried what he had? Shipped it to Syria?
To what end? The enemy is at the gates. What is gained by continuing to hoard a weapon away? I hear this hypothesis quite frequently and it just doesn't make any sense to me.
-
To what end? The enemy is at the gates. What is gained by continuing to hoard a weapon away? I hear this hypothesis quite frequently and it just doesn't make any sense to me.
Well, he received resolutions to disarm long before the enemy was at the gates. Inspectors coming in as well.
Did he not believe we would come in? Possibly.
So, you are willing to surmise that the intelligence of the entire free world, including the U.N was wrong?
-
Originally posted by Steve
So, you are willing to surmise that the intelligence of the entire free world, including the U.N was wrong?
I'm betting it wouldn't be the first time.
-
I'm betting it wouldn't be the first time.
Isn't it moot?
Every country that commented on the WMD issue said that Iraq possessed WMD.
Let's say you are the President. Are you saying you are going to not do anythign because the intelligence of the entire free world was wrong in the past?
On the world scale, do you disagree that it is better off w/ out Hussein?
Do you consider suicide bombers to be terrorists?
-
What makes you guys so angry over the war in Iraq? Can you list some reasons?
Because the war was sold on lies.
-
I guess the way I'm looking at it is... the sadman had been working on nuclear weapons (among others)before. He would do it again the second we left him alone If he wasn't doing it all along. the world and the U.S. is better off without him... no one else was gonna do anything.
crappy job but it needed to be done.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
I guess the way I'm looking at it is... the sadman had been working on nuclear weapons (among others)before. He would do it again the second we left him alone If he wasn't doing it all along. the world and the U.S. is better off without him... no one else was gonna do anything.
crappy job but it needed to be done.
lazs
Thats about it in a nutshell
-
Originally posted by Sandman
I think Spiderman can beat the hell out of Batman. :D
Now on THAT point I'll agree with you :)
-
Originally posted by Maniac
Because the war was sold on lies.
And that hasnt been proven yet. One way or the other.
As I incorrectly said on another post I will correctly say now.
"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"
Just about everyone From The Clinton administration to russia stated he possessed WMDs
the only difference between the Bush administration and just about everyone else with the exeption of our allies is he had the guts to actually do something about it now rather then wait for a potentially far more dangerous adversary later.
-
Originally posted by Toad
850+ have died and no sign of any WMD.
Wrong.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/05/25/iraq.main/
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Sometimes it an be difficult to argue with a pre-1965 smart arse, but I'm sticking to logic.
Well we know North Korea had WMD in abundance, so why not go in there like gangbusters and change the regime? By your own account, we should make damn sure these people don't use them.
Iraq was never about WMD or AQ. It never was. It's all about GW's inferiority complex regarding Bush One with the belief that this will put him "one up" on his dad. He's been trying to outdo him his entire life.
Iran had nuclear technology superior to Iraq.
AQ has links to saudi royalty.
NK has an active nuclear weapons program.
Where's the war cry from the administration with these states?
I'm listening.................... .....
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
the only difference between the Bush administration and just about everyone else with the exeption of our allies is he had the guts to actually do something about it now rather then wait for a potentially far more dangerous adversary later.
Or maybe his was the only administration zealous enough to get suckered intoan unwinnable situation by creating a war that would unite the Middle East against the United States in a way no one ever could...
-
Originally posted by Red Tail 444
Or maybe his was the only administration zealous enough to get suckered intoan unwinnable situation by creating a war that would unite the Middle East against the United States in a way no one ever could...
You seem to be living in a different reality from the rest of us.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Nuke, the lesson I took from VietNam was that you can't "make other people free". They have to want it bad enough to die for it themselves.
Yeah, we're going to "make them free". For a while; maybe even a decade or so. But it's a coin toss whether or not they stay that way.
Personally, I don't think it was worth one US soldier's life to "make them free". If they were really that miserable, they'd have killed the bassich themselves somehow.
Told ya I was in a cranky mood tonight.
THANK YOU TOAD!!!
I've stated this more than once on this BBS. Glad to see I'm not the only one who thinks this.
Want to be free? Gotta fight for it and die for it. It makes you appreciate it and defend it later on. "Give" someone freedom, and there is no "investment" on their part and no incentive to protect it later on.
-
Originally posted by Modas
THANK YOU TOAD!!!
I've stated this more than once on this BBS. Glad to see I'm not the only one who thinks this.
Want to be free? Gotta fight for it and die for it. It makes you appreciate it and defend it later on. "Give" someone freedom, and there is no "investment" on their part and no incentive to protect it later on.
Truer words have never been posted in this medium. Thats why I say obsidian with the lot of them. really would make a nice parking lot don't you think?
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Iraq had no cease-fire agreement with the US. Iraq stated they had destroyed the WMD. Iraq cooperated with the UN inspection teams before they were ordered out by the US.
nonsense
Even Blix said that Iraq had not accounted for the "Known" stocks of WMD's
Iraq did not fully cooperate with the UN inspection teams and any partial help they gave was stricktly under the threat of force.
It was the UN's responsibility to inspect for WMD's not the US. We could only order our own citizens out of iraq. If the UN left they left on their own accord.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
You seem to be living in a different reality from the rest of us.
...because I read....
-
Originally posted by Toad
My opinion is that the Syrians may be a more likely conduit to Arab terrorist types than SH was.
Discussing an invasion of Syria would be another thread for sure.
SH loudly and publicly financed suicide bombers, what makes you so sure he didnt quitely do the same? There is clear evidence that terrorist regulalry visited Iraq for everything from medical treatment to financial help. Is there any doubt that atleast one known terrorist camp operated in iraq? Its inconcievable to me that SH and his intelligence operations didnt know, assist or at the least condone their operations.
-
Originally posted by Krusher
SH loudly and publicly financed suicide bombers, what makes you so sure he didnt quitely do the same? There is clear evidence that terrorist regulalry visited Iraq for everything from medical treatment to financial help. Is there any doubt that atleast one known terrorist camp operated in iraq? Its inconcievable to me that SH and his intelligence operations didnt know, assist or at the least condone their operations.
Bullshiite..Where is this evidence linking Iraq to 9/11?..Where are the terrorist camps?..Huh?
-
Originally posted by Toad
Yeah, Steve, yer right.
But if their strong and healthy countrymen don't want to fight to get it for them, why should the sons of American mothers do it for them?
minus the french resistance what happened with france? even the poles in the warsaw gehttos lasted longer fight wise. The Bathist and imported terrorist in Iraq have been the major problem not the majority of the Iraqi people.
GW senior called for them to rise up against SH and thousands died trying while we sat back and watched. A more proactive approach could very well have ended this argument over a decade ago.
-
Originally posted by SirLoin
Bull****e..Where is this evidence linking Iraq to 9/11?..Where are the terrorist camps?..Huh?
bull**** yourself I said nothing about 9-11
the terrorist camp in iraq that our current terrorist dejor (Abu Musab al-Zarqawi ) used was right on the border with Iran.
he ran one camp in afgahnistan where he had a leg blown off. He came back to iraq for medical treatment and had a prostetic fitted.
The links have been posted before.
-
What is a terrorist camp Krusher?...You mean military training outside the USA?
-
Switching the subject eh Loin?
-
Originally posted by SirLoin
What is a terrorist camp Krusher?...You mean military training outside the USA?
do you really need a definition?
-
Smell the glove.
-
"where are the terrorist camps"
"on the border Iran-Iraq"
"err...well what is a terrorist camp anyway"
heh, loin got owned...
-
NUKE, I'm quite sincere....get some therapy!
-
Originally posted by Krusher
Iraq did not fully cooperate with the UN inspection teams and any partial help they gave was stricktly under the threat of force.
that is a lie!
Dr. Blix and his team had unresitricted access (at least that's the way Blix tells it, but you know better don't you?):rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by GScholz
*lol* you call that ownage? Well, I suppose you guys have to take what you can get these days. The US administration is either a bunch of lying war profiteers or a mindless collection of incompetent fools. Either way it's not a good choice to leave them in charge of the most powerful nation on earth.
I think you are just pissed because things are improving for the US.
UN mandate? Check.
Iraqi transfer of power? Check.
Militias being disarmed by Iraqi forces? Check.
Iraqis taking over more of the security issues overall? Check.
Italian/Polish hostage rescued? Check.
Opec increasing oil volumes? Check.
Things are actually starting to improve alot...and what happened with Kerrys foreign policy now? All he said he would do has been done by Bush now..
Damn GS, what are you going to whine about now?
-
Originally posted by xrtoronto
that is a lie!
Dr. Blix and his team had unresitricted access (at least that's the way Blix tells it, but you know better don't you?):rolleyes:
You're the liar.
http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/new/pages/document_list.asp
-
Originally posted by senna
Big talk for a guy who sat in and airial tanker and never saw combat. Go look up the statistics for that war. My own father saw combat, in the front lines, got shot at, and personally filmed loads of dead bodies. He began his service as a youth in military academy. He was shooting an M1 garand when he was a teenager in military school. Ive met chitloads of ex paratroopers, pilots, whatever (many of which spent many years in jail after the war). What the heck were they doing? Some of my own friends do not have fathers etc... edit: I think you should think before you speak.
Well, since you opened like that, I'll forego my usual polite response.
Look, putz, I didn't say a word about US troops that fought in VietNam. Didn't knock their courage, didn't slam their dedication, didn't impughn their honor or decry their reason for being there.
I think the US did an honorable thing in VietNam, I think those that fought and died there are heros.
However, it's also my opinion that the VietNamese proved themselves unworthy of a sacrifice this large. In short, they didn't want their freedom enough to die for it themselves at the end od the day.
Thus, my observation that you cannot "give" a people freedom. They have to want it badly enough to earn it for themselves.
Now, if that's not clear enough for you, show this to your father. I'll wager he'll agree and explain it to you.
BTW, an RC-135 has no refueling boom at all. So do a little more study and see what I did in those years. Putz.
-
For the rest of yas:
Yes, I supported Bush's decision to go to war based on what our government was saying and what some friends still in the biz were telling me.
Still, I also said upfront those WMD had to be there to justify invading a sovereign nation. I'm sure you can do a search and find my posts that mention that.
So, tell me now, over a year after the invasion and SH, the WMD-meister himself in our custody for 6 months or so......
The WMD
A) were non-existent and never were there
B) are still there but we don't know where they are
C) are in Syria, where the government is very chummy with known Islamic terrorist organizations
Which is it? After picking your answer, explain how that justifies invading a sovereign nation and losing 800+ of your finest citizens while saying "mission accomplished".
Because this mission was always about WMD. That was the entire thrust of the UN discussion.
Thanks in advance.
(That's why I'm p*ssed. There is no "good answer" in that list. I don't think "Boosh lied", I don't think "Boosh misled". I think the mission was never accomplished no matter what answer you pick. There has to be responsibility and accountability for that. Other than that, I have no big, impossible beef with Bush. I'd vote for him again. Except for this responsibility/accountability thing for 800+ mother's that lost a child.)
-
Well, it's clear there's someone who doesn't know cit yapping his trap. You, of course.
Anyone that's delved into the history of the VietNam war has to be aware of the near total antipathy of the South Vietnamese towards doing their own fighting. Flyboy has nothing to do with it; anyone can educate themselves on a subject if they have the interest.
Ask your father about the ARVN troops overall. Sure, there were specific units that were good, even great. But ask him what he thought about having a regular ARVN unit protecting his flanks.
You need to hit the books, Senna. The bottom line is the NV's wanted it far more badly than the SV's.
Which is no reflection on American troops or American participation. So you can just can your BS about me dissing US troops. That's a figment of your overactive imagination.
-
Do you know what 30 or more m-16s or ak-47s sound like when they fire all at once. You know how artilary sounds when it lands near you. What bullets sound like when they fly past your head. My father does. I've heard him talk about that. Nuff said.
-
Right, if I read what crusher posted right, that terrorist leader (who ran a camp in Afghanistan) got to be the source of link between terrorists and Sadaam because he went to get medical attention in Irak? sure... that makes sense...
The reason I remember for going in was the WMD, not Sadaam... the "Sadaam / Liberation" thing was clearly 2nd in any news you'd see back when it started (of course... now the tune has changed ;))
don't get me wrong... it's a good thing that man's gone... but I'm not buying the solidarity thing for a second... especially not comming from a "state".
PS: Wow this is as close to seeing Toad cuss than I ever will I guess. That was pretty uncalled for, senna
-
I erased my other post because of my language. ;) Nothing personal meant towards you, I talk like that all the time.
:lol
-
Originally posted by Toad
Look, putz, I didn't say a word about US troops that fought in VietNam. Didn't knock their courage, didn't slam their dedication, didn't impughn their honor or decry their reason for being there.
I think the US did an honorable thing in VietNam, I think those that fought and died there are heros.
However, it's also my opinion that the VietNamese proved themselves unworthy of a sacrifice this large. In short, they didn't want their freedom enough to die for it themselves at the end od the day.
Thus, my observation that you cannot "give" a people freedom. They have to want it badly enough to earn it for themselves.
Nicely said Toad..
-
Toad you were flying over France in the 70's ?
I'm not really surprised it did happen give the political climate in France at this time.
-
And BTW Toad, I've read my history and service biographies and know enough though I wont argue with you on the subject. I do not myself have first hand experience though Im not niave about these things. I have my own opinions as well.
;)
And thank you for your own service.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
You're the liar.
http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/new/pages/document_list.asp
shove it hortlund...i'm not talking about 14 years ago ya boob!
Blix said:
"I trust that in the new environment in Iraq in which there is full access and cooperation and in which knowledgeable witnesses should no longer be inhibited to reveal what they know," he said, "it should be possible to establish the truth we all want to know."
read it for yourself:
CNN (http://edition.cnn.com/2003/US/06/05/sprj.irq.blix.report/index.html)
-
Originally posted by Toad
Well, Nuke, we disagree.
We invaded a sovereign country and to date have not found any evidence supporting our reason for doing so. Maybe it is in Syria; see above for what I think of that.
Not good enough for me, sorry.
What's sacred about being "sovereign"? If you get caught with your hand in the cookie jar, so-to-speak, then you get it slapped, or you should. SH was murdering his own people and sanctioning the murder of other citizenry around the world.
-
Originally posted by senna
Do you know what 30 or more m-16s or ak-47s sound like when they fire all at once. You know how artilary sounds when it lands near you. What bullets sound like when they fly past your head. My father does. I've heard him talk about that. Nuff said.
No, I don't.
Do you?
What does your Father say about the ARVN's willingness to fight for their own freedom?
After all your study, you must be aware that for every "front line combat trooper" in the US Army in SVN, there were 9 REMF's that essentially did no fighting?
Are you saying they made no contribution? Are you saying they should have no opinion?
Are you saying that the only histories/analysis of the VN war that one should read are those written by combat infantry men?
What of the mess cook's assistant on the Navy DD in the Gulf of Tonkin? You going to slight him the same way you slight my service?
Let me clue you, pal. I come from immigrant stock. Of the sons of immigrants of age to fight in WW2 on my mother's and father's side, 7 of 7 served. All volunteered, none were drafted if family oral history is correct. 6 came home.
In my family, my brother volunteered and attended USMA, Class of '67. In your vast research, I'm sure you've stumbled across the fact that the Class of '66 and Class of '67 are essentially tied for having the most class members on the Wall in DC.
In the time of draft dodgers, I accepted an AFROTC scholarship. I could have had a USAFA or USNA appointment but on the advice of my brother I went to a school that also admitted women. In my UPT class of 55 graduates, there were 7 fighter assignments in the aircraft block MPC gave my class. My class had the dubious distinction of being assigned to available aircraft by computer lottery using the last 4 of your social security number to identify you. My cowardly last 4 didn't get a fighter although I had requested it on my dream sheet. Shame on those numbers!
I guess my service had no value to the nation, eh? I come from a long line of "aerial tanker sitters" right?
In short, byte me.
-
Originally posted by straffo
Toad you were flying over France in the 70's ?
Yes, '76 to '80.
-
Originally posted by slimm50
What's sacred about being "sovereign"? If you get caught with your hand in the cookie jar, so-to-speak, then you get it slapped, or you should. SH was murdering his own people and sanctioning the murder of other citizenry around the world.
Well, Slimm, there's this thing called "just war".
It's ok to invade sovereign nations if you have just "causus belli". The topic has been pretty well hashed out by the real brainy guys and deep thinkers.
OTOH, it's NOT OK to invade sovereign nations without just "causus belli". In fact, it's this type of action that got everyone all riled up at Adolf.
I'm sorry, but I don't see any "causus belli" that would qualify under just war theory in this situation.
Had we found the WMD, that would be different.
-
I think that was brought up extensively by a lot of people bfore we invaded, and, arguably, our administration, using the established criteria, made a pretty strong case for a "just" war.
-
One more thing Senna.
I've read pretty extensively about the VietNam war but I must have missed the ones about how the ARVN were uncompromising, ferocious fighters that would never give up. I missed the on about how SVN didn't need a draft because their sons were so eager to get at the enemy that they volunteered in droves.
Give me a few titles, will you?
Thanks!
-
I disagree.
Principles of the Just War (http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/pol116/justwar.htm)
Principles of the Just War
A just war can only be waged as a last resort. All non-violent options must be exhausted before the use of force can be justified.
A war is just only if it is waged by a legitimate authority. Even just causes cannot be served by actions taken by individuals or groups who do not constitute an authority sanctioned by whatever the society and outsiders to the society deem legitimate.
A just war can only be fought to redress a wrong suffered. For example, self-defense against an armed attack is always considered to be a just cause (although the justice of the cause is not sufficient--see point #4). Further, a just war can only be fought with "right" intentions: the only permissible objective of a just war is to redress the injury.
A war can only be just if it is fought with a reasonable chance of success. Deaths and injury incurred in a hopeless cause are not morally justifiable.
The ultimate goal of a just war is to re-establish peace. More specifically, the peace established after the war must be preferable to the peace that would have prevailed if the war had not been fought.
The violence used in the war must be proportional to the injury suffered. States are prohibited from using force not necessary to attain the limited objective of addressing the injury suffered.
The weapons used in war must discriminate between combatants and non-combatants. Civilians are never permissible targets of war, and every effort must be taken to avoid killing civilians. The deaths of civilians are justified only if they are unavoidable victims of a deliberate attack on a military target.
-
I believe there was a draft for those of military age. Basicaly everybody that I ever met of my fathers friends served except for a small number who did not. Sure there were draft dodgers. As I stated above, Im sure there were some or perhaps many but still many more who did serve.
-
Originally posted by senna
I believe there was a draft for the vietnamese of military age. Basicaly everybody that I ever met of my fathers friends served except for a small number who did not. Sure there were draft dodgers. As I stated above, Im sure there were some or perhaps many but still many more who did serve.
Open your eyes and READ what I posted.
I haven't said a SINGLE THING that's negative about American participation.
Here, re-read this:
Look, putz, I didn't say a word about US troops that fought in VietNam. Didn't knock their courage, didn't slam their dedication, didn't impugn their honor or decry their reason for being there.
I think the US did an honorable thing in VietNam, I think those that fought and died there are heros.
I respect and admire the US troops... of ALL branches and ALL military specialties........ that served in VietNam.
I cannot say the same, however, for most of their ARVN counterparts.
What I'm saying, and what YOU keep missing, is that the South VietNamese didn't want freedom badly enough to "pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor" in pursuit of that goal.
The US trooper should hold his head high. Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. I salute them all.
Unlike you, apparently.
-
Toad, you are entitled to your own opinion. I do agree with you on the part about US forces in SVN. As for your family history, good for you.
Very hot here, think my air conditioner is broken today.
-
Toad, going back to the orginal arguments, I do not take a casual view of the 800 plus soldiers who died in Iraq.
When I said "mission accomplished" I said that with these thoughts in mind:
No one was ever going to be sure Iraq did not have WMD of would rebuild themafter Hanx Blix declared them compliant.
The point of this war was not to take down Saddam, free Iraqis or find WMD. The point of the war was to ensure Iraq did not have WMD and/or banned weapons ( which he did have)
The mission was accomplished. We now have Iraq in full compliance and Saddam will no longer be a threat. A bonus is that Saddam is out of power and Iraqis have the oppertunity to be free.
I never made the point that freedom was "given" to Iraqis, I meant that they are free from Saddam....liberated.
Toad, you jumped into the thread before I could get a chance hear from the non-Americans why they where so extremely opposed to our war with Iraq. I wanted people from other countries to explain to me what exactly it is that effects them and their countries that makes the war against Iraq so bad.
I guess I hit a nerve with you Toad. Maybe you thought I was being thoughtless about the loss of American lives? That was not my intention at all. I was aiming the whole post at non-Americans and people that complained so bitterly, yet are not effected by our actions in Iraq.
-
Look chum, you come in here and slam my service because I was not a front-line combat troop.
I take extreme umbrage to that. You still have not apologized for this insult.
The implication is that NO ONE who wasn't in combat really "served". That's an incredible position, particulary given that nearly 90% of the Army forces in VN were in "support" roles.
I think even your father would tell you that you stepped on your crank with golf shoes here.
You have NEVER addressed the South VietNamese and the "willingness to fight for their own freedom" question, other than to say you disagree.
Fine, disagree.
But the only thing you've really posted in support is slams on my service.
Pretty thin.
Good day.
-
Thanks Toad.
-
I hope Toad wasn't refering to me... :confused:
I have the highest respect for any person who serves and who has served our country.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Nuke, the lesson I took from VietNam was that you can't "make other people free". They have to want it bad enough to die for it themselves.
It's always a mistake to assume "good ideas" in one culture represent "good ideas" in another culture.
I'm still not sure if Vietnam wanted Western style success for their country. And, who knows, over the long haul, they may be correct.
Arab culture is so very strange by Western standards, I'm not sure it's possible for us to relate to it.
I sure agree with the sentiment, "They have to want it bad enough to die for it themselves."
curly
-
Nuke, that one was for Senna. Sorry, thought that was obvious.
Now to your post.
If you wanted only Euro answers, you should have put it in the Title.
Don't want to get into a tit for tat, but I'll take the time to reply point by point in hopes you understand my position a little better.
Then, I'm reformatting and installing XP. Time to be drug into the present, I guess. I have fears it'll take weeks to get everything working again.
Anyway:
Originally posted by NUKE
Toad, going back to the orginal arguments, I do not take a casual view of the 800 plus soldiers who died in Iraq.
Didn't say you did. Good. Now, tell me, given the "achieved goals" would you be able to say it was worth it if YOUR son died in achieving them? I can't say that.
When I said "mission accomplished" I said that with these thoughts in mind:
No one was ever going to be sure Iraq did not have WMD of would rebuild themafter Hanx Blix declared them compliant.
Nonstarter, Nuke. No one can be SURE of anything in the future. This argument is absolutely destroyed in any event by the NK and Iran nuke situation. Hell, if Blix could show Iraq clear, that'd be more than could be shown about either NK or Iran at the same time. They are part of the named "axis of evil" and their nuke programs are demonstrably farther along than any evidence showed Iraq'a to be. Yet we are managing to deal with NK and Iran without invading them. So, your point fails. If we can deal with NK and Iran without invasion, we could deal with Iraq in the same way in the "unknowable future".
The point of this war was not to take down Saddam, free Iraqis or find WMD. The point of the war was to ensure Iraq did not have WMD and/or banned weapons ( which he did have)
Again:
The WMD
A) were non-existent and never were there
B) are still there but we don't know where they are
C) are in Syria, where the government is very chummy with known Islamic terrorist organizations
Which is it? Or do you have another answer?
After picking your answer, explain how that justifies invading a sovereign nation and losing 800+ of your finest citizens while saying "mission accomplished".
We HAVE NOT "ensure Iraq did not have WMD and/or banned weapons"; they may still be buried in the desert 1/2 mile from that MiG for all you and I know. And they may dig them up and "get even" as soon as we leave. It's unprovable at this point; we found essentially NOTHING.
The mission was accomplished. We now have Iraq in full compliance and Saddam will no longer be a threat. A bonus is that Saddam is out of power and Iraqis have the oppertunity to be free.
Yeah, we made Iraq "comply" with the UN resolutions. Given that we really DIDN'T FIND A DAMN THING, was it worth 800 empty chairs around the table next Thanksgiving? Sorry, I dont' think so. If it was my son, I'd be p*ssed majorly.
The bonus, yeah, I agree, that's a bonus for the Iraqis. Something they should have done themselves, of course (see my previous posts on the VietNamese). So was that worth the life of your son? Any of our sons?
-
Originally posted by AKcurly
It's always a mistake to assume "good ideas" in one culture represent "good ideas" in another culture.
I'm still not sure if Vietnam wanted Western style success for their country. And, who knows, over the long haul, they may be correct.
Arab culture is so very strange by Western standards, I'm not sure it's possible for us to relate to it.
I sure agree with the sentiment, "They have to want it bad enough to die for it themselves."
curly
Hear Hear!
:aok
-
Well Toad, I have a number of questions.
1. You keep rattling on about the U.S. invading a "sovereign nation." How does Iraq fit that description? Nearly 70% of the population, counting both Shi'ite Muslims and Kurds, were disenfranchised and subject to mass murder if they raised an eyebrow in protest.
2. You stated that the ARVN were unworthy of our help and our blood because they did not fight ferociously enough for their freedom. Following that line of reasoning then, do you think the French deserved our help in 1944? After all, they surrendered after only 6 weeks of combat and many in the Vichy government were corrupt opportunists who collaborated with the Germans.
3. Don't you think your collective condemnation of the ARVN troops is unfair? It's a little hard to give throat to lusty battle cries when one lives with the fear of North Vietnamese reprisals against one's family. This would especially be true of those troops recruited from farming villages.
4. A righteous war? What rubbish. Whose definition of a righteous war are you going to adopt? You act as if you think preemptive war were a new concept. Nations have launched preemptive wars to eliminate threats as far back as the time of the Old Kingdom period of ancient Egypt.
5. According to your own statements, you supported the war based on what you were told about wmds by the government. Since none have been found so far, you are agin it. How convenient...you've changed your mind to suit the situation. Bush and Powell testified that all the evidence gathered by intelligence sources indicated that Saddam was developing wmds. They never said that it was an iron-clad certainty that the weapons were there. Were you not listening when they listed other, equally important reasons for invading Iraq and deposing Saddam?
6. Don't you think that Saddam needed to be deposed? Do his attempts to destabilize the region and his crimes of genocide count for nothing?
7. The U.N. had given every indication that, despite it's own resolutions to the contrary, it was going to do nothing about Saddam. If not the U.N. then who? Russia or France? Countries that were knee-deep in shady economic and oil deals with that butcher? Why not the United States? By sheer elimination, there was no one else.
-
Ooh, ooh! I'll take number 5 and #2!
Though I don't like the flag representation at the end, here are some quotes regarding the admin's stance on wmd's. In their own words:
http://www.kaicurryservices.com/gwbush/remindus.swf
The word "indicated" was never mentioned. However, "fact" and "immediate threat" and "millions dead" are.
#2: {Sovereign state}, a state which administers its own
government, and is not dependent upon, or subject to,
another power.
h
-
And people have been lieing to start premptive wars since the the pyramids were made as well.
No WMD
No ties to terror.
Mean while we announce success in the war on terror..but oops. that intel came from the same lick spittle ananlyst that provided the WMD intel.
oops. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5183158/)
-
Horn,
Our Founding Fathers believed sovereignty rested with "the people." How could Saddam's Iraq be called a sovereign state when the majority of it's population was disenfranchised?
You're going to need more to justify your position than some cut-and-paste snippets taken out of context by an organization whose bias against the current administration is so blatantly evident.
The administration acted on intelligence data that was the best that they had at the time, coming from both the CIA and the British secret service. They firmly believed that Saddam either had or was developing wmds. The failure to unearth such weapons does not make them liars, it simply means they made decisions based on faulty intelligence. While actual weapons have not been found, our forces have uncovered substantial evidence that he had programs in place to develop them. Some of his own scientists have testified to his determination to use these programs to develop such weapons.
I have found few opponents of the current administration who are willing to admit that Saddam's crimes against his own people were sufficient to justify the invasion. How many does he have to kill before it becomes important enough to matter?
-
GScholz,
Oooh...insults.
Please site an example where I have opposed taking action in Africa. You can't because I haven't. Anytime the U.S. government wants to intervene in Africa or any other place in the world to save innocent lives I will support it. How that little diatribe of yours ties in with this debate eludes me.
You need to be careful with accusations of incompetence, unless you yourself can lay claim to infallibility. Bill Clinton also believed the intelligence reports which state that Saddam had or was producing wmds. Was he totally imcompetent or a liar? (Pardon me...I am momentarily overcom by mirth.)
Former administrations extended recognition of Saddam's government. THAT was a mistake...which the current administration recognized as such and then corrected. Any government that disenfranchises more than half of its electorate is illegitimate.
-
Ohh it's all about oil and newspapers.
everyone else is just a statistic.
ravs
-
This thread is getting so politically dense it will eventually collapse on itself sending out large quantities of nothing.
Daniel
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
Horn,
Our Founding Fathers believed sovereignty rested with "the people." How could Saddam's Iraq be called a sovereign state when the majority of it's population was disenfranchised?
You're going to need more to justify your position than some cut-and-paste snippets taken out of context by an organization whose bias against the current administration is so blatantly evident.
You are mixing up the numbers. #2 is sovereignity. I gave you the definition (admittedly C&P'd from a web dictionary) and by ANY definition Iraq was a sovereign, independent nation-state which we invaded. And, as an aside, the definition has nothing whatever to do with the status of the populace, disenfranchised or no.
The administration acted on intelligence data that was the best that they had at the time, coming from both the CIA and the British secret service. They firmly believed that Saddam either had or was developing wmds. The failure to unearth such weapons does not make them liars, it simply means they made decisions based on faulty intelligence. While actual weapons have not been found, our forces have uncovered substantial evidence that he had programs in place to develop them. Some of his own scientists have testified to his determination to use these programs to develop such weapons.
I have found few opponents of the current administration who are willing to admit that Saddam's crimes against his own people were sufficient to justify the invasion. How many does he have to kill before it becomes important enough to matter? [/B]
The above was number 5 where you said, "They never said that it was an iron-clad certainty that the weapons were there. Were you not listening when they listed other, equally important reasons for invading Iraq and deposing Saddam?"
The little shockwave thingie disproves your contention which is why I posted it--their own words, words used to scare the US populace into action. Irrelevant that the site or the author has an agenda--do you dispute that those were not the words of the administration? I mean, I saw most of it on the TV. I'm sure you did too. There were NO other MORE important reasons that presented a clear and present danger to us. None.
Your statement, "While actual weapons have not been found, our forces have uncovered substantial evidence that he had programs in place to develop them. Some of his own scientists have testified to his determination to use these programs to develop such weapons," is false or at best misleading. He may have been "determined" to go to Mars as well--it doesn't mean he had the wherewithal to do so. "Programs in place" is also misleading as again, he may have desperately wanted to, but again, didn't have the ability. He certainly didn't have the ability to deploy them on a battlefield, "in as little as 45 minutes" (Colin Powell to the UN).
Was he a BAD man? Of course. So was the slaughter in Rwanda yet nothing was done (we actually pulled out) and they kilt more folks in 90 days than SH did in 10 years. We must have forgotten to invade them. Oops.
He was contained between no fly zones and embargo, UN scandal notwithstanding. SH was going nowhere. I hope this answers some of your questions.
h
-
GScholz,
Apparently some things elude you as well.
When I said "Former administrations" I meant ANY administration that had treated Saddam's government as legitimate.
The depths of Saddam's evil and depravity have not always been as apparent as they have become in recent times.
The only incompetent act of an administration that cannot be forgiven is the failure to correct a mistake.
Pax...I'll try to keep the debate civil if you will.
Shuckins/Leggern
-
I just spent a half an hour reading this whole thread.
1. Nuke..lol at your early claims of victory. Sorry bud, but I don't agree that your "super-logic" was happening.
2. Yikes Senna. Uncool.
3. LOL Cyrano.
-
Horn,
I based my definition of sovereignty on that ascribed to by the architects of our nation...that no government can be legitimate where sovereignty does not rest with the people. I was not attempting to address the issue of Saddam's government operating free of foreign control.
My statement concerning the shockwave video was meant to point out that the administration has said many things about the causes for invading Iraq. It is hardly accurate or fair to cite just those that support one's own beliefs without looking at the "whole picture."
Regards
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
Horn,
I based my definition of sovereignty on that ascribed to by the architects of our nation...that no government can be legitimate where sovereignty does not rest with the people. I was not attempting to address the issue of Saddam's government operating free of foreign control.
My statement concerning the shockwave video was meant to point out that the administration has said many things about the causes for invading Iraq. It is hardly accurate or fair to cite just those that support one's own beliefs without looking at the "whole picture."
Regards
I would appreciate a link to (explaining) your first papragraph. Are you referring to the life, liberty and pursuit fo happiness etc or is it something else? Sovereignity can't be separated--a country either is or isn't. Whether it be a dictatorship, republic or theocracy.
As to the video, it was only to highlight the contradiction in your post; that the administration merely "indicated" that there "might" be WMD. Your quote, "They never said that it was an iron-clad certainty that the weapons were there," is what I was replying to. They not only said it was a fact that it was there but that we were actually in imminent danger of being attacked.
The big picture is that without WMD's there were no other immediate compelling reasons to go to war--not "freedom" for the Iraquis, not cheap oil.
h
-
Originally posted by Curval
I just spent a half an hour reading this whole thread.
1. Nuke..lol at your early claims of victory. Sorry bud, but I don't agree that your "super-logic" was happening.
2. Yikes Senna. Uncool.
3. LOL Cyrano.
I'm suprised it's been kept pretty civil, other than Senna's garbage.
By the way Curval, what is your view on the US action in Iraq?
-
Originally posted by CyranoAH
This thread is getting so politically dense it will eventually collapse on itself sending out large quantities of nothing.
Daniel
:D
-
Horn,
Part of our difficulty in understanding the issue of sovereignty stems from the evolution of the English language. It is one of those words that has had a number of definitions in the last two centuries.
The modern definition is, as you stated, the right of a government to rule free of foreign interference.
The Founding Fathers often used and recognized another definition. The sovereignty, or right of a government to rule, was granted by the people to that government so that it might protect their rights. If that government became abusive of those rights they believed that the people had the authority to disband that government and create another. By their reasoning, when King George III's government abused their rights they had the authority to cast off his rule and create for themselves a new government. The sovereignty of his government, or right to rule, reverted back to "the people."
Hope that clears up any misunderstandings.
Regards
-
You're the kind of people that voted for Hitler.
Wrong. People like me are the people that saved the world from Hitler after people like you stood by and did nothing as he armed and annexed territories at will. People like me saved the world from left wing loser appeasers like you.
Fear not G****z, left wing do-nothing losers with their hands out like you are reproducing in vast numbers and will soon hold the majority vote here in our country. Then, when the world is in real trouble, we will sit on our hands and try to reach a peaceful solution along with the rest of the leftist world. Maybe then, after thousands if not millions have been slaughtered, the American public will again turn to people like me to save them.
Then, people like you will call us extremists, even as we save the world... again. Loser!
-
Well, Nuke..it's kind of like the way Toad sees it.
I was the biggest supporter of Bush going in, but I did so based upon the WMD argument. I probably even leaned towards going in without that argument, as long as WMD's weren't the specified reason.
Even though I still support the US wholeheatedly I really am a bit disappointed at how the whole thing is now a huge political football.
I expressed my concerns right from the get-go that the record of the US in what we now call "regime change" was poor and that I really hoped the US could control the situation after the war was over.
I'm still hopeful as recent news does appear to be that a measure of control has been attained, but watching these guys die every day really is hard to take, and they aren't even my countrymen. They are allies though and, in fact, there are a couple of guys from here serving in the US forces, so I am "involved" to a degree.
As far as Bush's responsibility goes...well I'll leave that up to you guys to hammer out. I can't vote, so I am only an interested bystander (who wants Bush to win for selfish reasons.....and that I dislike Kerry).
:D
-
Curval, I respect your views as well as Toad's views.
I consider the Iraq war to be a good thing and I see it as possibly an historic, positive event in, and for the Middle East.
Maybe we are too close to all of it at this time, but I believe in my heart that we did the right thing and that it will become to be known as a great thing America helped accomplish.
America does not go to war just for the hell of it, and this war was no different. I think we made the correct choice based on all information available.
I pray for all the families who have lost loved ones on all sides and I do not take any death lightly.
-
Originally posted by Pongo
And people have been lieing to start premptive wars since the the pyramids were made as well.
No WMD
No ties to terror.
By international acclaim, and by evidence of Kurdish and Iranian dead, WMD’s did exist in Iraq, the only question is whether they had been destroyed by the time the spring 2003 invasion happened. UNSC Resolution 687 required the destruction of WMD’s “under international supervision”. Iraq did not follow 687.
-
It was exactly 00:00:00 3.14. The very beginning of an ordinary day for most people, including most Americans. But not for the inside circle in the White House. Again, there was absolutely nothing noticeable around or inside the White House last night. Yet, it was, it always has been, it will be so, the most important moment of the year! Pi Day! Some pronounce and even write it as Pie Day.
Specific to the American civilization, the date is expressed as '213', instead of the international method of '123' (ascending order: day->month->year). March 14 is expressed as '314', therefore '3.14', therefore the inception of the number 'Pi'. Pi is the divine number that no human can ever calculate precisely. It is at the heart of divine circle. “The area of the circle is equal to Pi times Radius square.”
PI is the result of dividing the circumference (perimeter) of the circle (L) by its diameter (D). The great Greek mathematician Archimedes was the first to calculate Pi. He approximated Pi to 3.14, a value still in wide use today.
ð = L / D
“Why so— month - > day - > year?” terrestrials everywhere wonder.
I am fortunate to have learnt recently a very tight secret. It was passed on to me from a scholar who desired to remain unidentified. The scholar has also remained outside the Internet revolution, unable to write HTML files and author web sites. My web site is the reason she decided to share with me the tightest secret in human civilization. In turn, I promised to make public extraordinary information via the Internet.
When the most precise atomic clock beams exactly 00:00:00 3.14, Almighty Number visits with the President of the United States. The President himself bakes a large apple pie. Almighty Number cuts it into the perfect circle. Then, Its Almighty slices it into portions precisely calculated by the “Golden Number” or “Divine Proportion”.
The Golden Number gives the shape of the entire Universe. Think of it as of those spiral shapes of the galaxies. The Divine Proportion is also found in the human body. The Great Masters, such as Leonardo da Vinci, always used the Divine Proportion in their masterpieces. One can find the Golden Number in Mona Lisa's face, as the ratio between the height and the width of her smiling face. Or vice-versa, as the ratio between the width and the height of her melancholic face. Some think of the Golden Number as the Fibonacci series. In fact, the ratio of any two consecutive numbers in the Fibonacci series tends to approximate the Divine Proportion. The ratio will be equal to the Golden Number in a series with an infinite number of elements.
Let's take a segment and divide it into two parts, a and b. There are two conditions that lead to the Golden proportion:
1) b greater than a (b > a);
2) a/b = b/(a+b).
(The Ancients, by the way, expressed the Divine Proportion in mystical chants comprehensible only to highly initiated cult members. “I am the mean and the extreme!”, they were chanting.)
If we make a + b = 1, the relation a/b = b/(a+b) leads to the well-known equation:
x² + x - 1 = 0.
The two roots of the equation are known as “The Golden Number” or Phi:
Ö = {Sqr(5) ± 1} / 2 = 1.618033989... or Phi = 0.618033989...
Normally, if big / small then Ö = 1.618
if small / big then Ö = 0.618
(Side bar: In the English speaking nations, some write it as Go(l)d(en), indicating the Golden Number as the manifestation of God.)
The most mind-boggling expression of the Golden Number is an infinite series of 1, in the form: (Ö = 1 plus (1 over (1 + (1 over) (1 + 1 over))))… And so one to the infinite. It looks more like a stairway all the way down to minus infinite. The initiated say it is the stairway Almighty Number takes to descend to the earth.
It's the mathematical Stairway to and from Heaven, from minus Infinite to plus Infinite, and infinitely vice versa. There has to be something about the Divine Proportion. Not only did it lead to such a divine visual masterpiece—Mona Lisa. It also brought to life a divine audio masterpiece: Led Zeppelin's Stairway to Heaven. The musical mystics “think” that the distance between the notes of Stairway to Heaven can be represented by the PHI golden number. Did you know that one radio station in Florida plays Stairway to Heaven over and over, the New Year's Eve? They do not play any other song, December 31 until New Year's Day, January 1, 00:00:01. Humans get addicted especially to the divine…
I must make this confession here. I was preoccupied with the divine proportion in my pre-philosophical past. I wrote my first and only novel (never to be published!) following strictly the requirements of the golden proportion. The number of words per line over the number of lines per page had to be compatible with the golden number ratio. The number of lines per page over the number of pages in the book had to lead to the divine proportion. I still have the manuscript here. I never read the story more than once. I only take measurement of the divine proportion parameters sometimes. A beloved lover of the opposite even measured our parts and she did come up with the precise golden proportion. The measurements made me lose consciousness one day. “We are sentenced to immortality”, she warned me. She and I abruptly went different ways; we never, ever, said good-bye to each other. We may believe we'll see each other again on the stairway to heaven.
The “Pi Day” started on March 14, 1776, during the Independence War. Highly secret records show that George Washington gave the order “We shall Circle them!” It is said that at that moment, mid-night sharp, 3.14, 1776, Almighty Number descended on the Divine Stairway to the battlefield. The American revolutionaries formed a devastating circling of the British troops. Not only the war was won, but the world changed for ever on Pi Day 1776. “You shall always worship Me and only Me”, Almighty Number thundered. “You shall build a world upon my laws, and formulae, and equations! And you shall always celebrate Me every year, at this very moment!”
There are many hints of that memorable event. Look at the seals of the US government. They are the representation of the perfect circle! The first flag of the United States represented a circle of stars! The thirteen stars represented Almighty Number and Its Twelve Hours.
There are no religious symbols in the government of the United States. Doesn't that fact alone raise serious questions? How was that possible, in a strongly religious (Christian) society, in an era when religion even decided life or death? The symbol of the cross is nowhere to be found in the armory of the United States! It is said that Almighty Number ordered in a lightening manner: “You shall not use my operational symbols as symbols of your passing power! For the cross resembles +, my symbol of addition. For I add and I take randomly, but you can't and shall not!” The Confederate States used the “X” symbol during the Civil War. “I shall punish them with a vengeance! For X is my reserved operational symbol of multiplication. For I multiply and divide as I randomly please, but you shall not!” One reason the division of the United States was so cruelly stopped: The X on the Confederate flag.
Well, yes, there is also the circular shape of the nuclear explosion…
I wish to each and every one of you a happy Pi Day—male and female, leftist and rightist, sinner and saint, friend and foe! May Almighty Number grant us always the divine proportion between our hopes and our endeavors! And thus we shall not count things we lapse and discount blessings we touch.
Ion Saliu
PS
For the English speakers who search the Internet on “the pronunciation of PI and PHI”, in Classical Greek:
The Greek symbol ö or Ö PHI is pronounced like Fee.
The Greek symbol ð or Ð PI is pronounced like Pea.
-
Too much text..can you condense it and state an opinion or view?
-
No. you have to read it.
Ravs
-
reading it probably would not give me an insight to your opinion.
Too much text without a comment, sorry
-
Your loss ;)
Ravs
-
Maybe you could start a thread for it instead of posting it here?
This thread is about the Iraq war
-
Nuke,
It's kind of like a Clinton speech...makes a lot of people feel good...but they can't remember a dam thing he said.
Regards, Shuckins/Leggern
-
Read it. it's about the Iraq war.
Ravs
-
Ravell is trying to get a numerology parallel into why March 14 was an attack date.
Of course the 1991 attack war was in January, iirc.
>edit: I was wrong, March 19 was the first attack. I cannot find any relationship whatsoever to this thread.
-
phew. I hadn't actually read it, apart from the first couple of sentences, so thanks, Holden!
I knew it would mean something.
Ravs
-
Originally posted by CyranoAH
This thread is getting so politically dense it will eventually collapse on itself sending out large quantities of nothing.
Daniel
I love this one :rofl
-
http://www.kaicurryservices.com/gwbush/remindus.swf
-
Originally posted by NUKE
What the worst part of the Iraq war has been.
Can anyone list what has been detrimental to either thier country, the world, Iraq or Iraqis?
What makes you guys so angry over the war in Iraq? Can you list some reasons?
#1 WHO declared a WAR? Not Congress!! And they are the only ones with the power to do so. Our Country is not at War with the Nation of Iraq, at least not legally at War. We are involved in a Military Action but not a War. This makes a huge difference in many ways, and to declare War on Terrorism? C'mon gimme a break here!!! Of course there's a war on terrorism!!!
#2 If at all, we should have gone after the good ol boy Saddam right when he nailed the Kurds with nerve gas ( He certainly had WMD then did'nt he? ) Or would we have been embarassed for the world to find out where he got it from? Who knows.
#3 IMHO Saddam was,and still is,someone who needed to be removed from power, eliminated, disposed of, or whatever term you would like to use but the entire International Community should have helped and we should stop all foreign aid and trade immediately with those who did not.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
By international acclaim, and by evidence of Kurdish and Iranian dead, WMD’s did exist in Iraq, the only question is whether they had been destroyed by the time the spring 2003 invasion happened. UNSC Resolution 687 required the destruction of WMD’s “under international supervision”. Iraq did not follow 687.
They obviosly did. The US would not allow that to be recognised.
-
Originally posted by diezalot
#1 WHO declared a WAR? Not Congress!! And they are the only ones with the power to do so. Our Country is not at War with the Nation of Iraq, at least not legally at War. We are involved in a Military Action but not a War. This makes a huge difference in many ways, and to declare War on Terrorism? C'mon gimme a break here!!! Of course there's a war on terrorism!!!
[/b]
One Hundred Seventh Congress
of the
United States of America
AT THE FIRST SESSION
Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,
the third day of January, two thousand and one
Joint Resolution
To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.
Whereas, on September 11, 2001, acts of treacherous violence were committed against the United States and its citizens; and
Whereas, such acts render it both necessary and appropriate that the United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect United States citizens both at home and abroad; and
Whereas, in light of the threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by these grave acts of violence; and
Whereas, such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States; and
Whereas, the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This joint resolution may be cited as the `Authorization for Use of Military Force'.
SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.
(b) War Powers Resolution Requirements-
(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.
(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this resolution supercedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.
Speaker of the House of Representatives.
Vice President of the United States and
President of the Senate.
END
#3 IMHO Saddam was,and still is,someone who needed to be removed from power, eliminated, disposed of, or whatever term you would like to use but the entire International Community should have helped and we should stop all foreign aid and trade immediately with those who did not.
The entire international community refused to help. Except the allies of cource. So if he needed to be removed from power, and congress authorised the president to do it..why are you here, now whining?
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Anyone else notice the 9/11 qualifiers?
Stop trying to understand law you clown.
-
The problem with idiots like you trying to score points using a legal document is that they tend to focus on some part of some paragraph, and ignore completely other parts of some paragraph.
Did you for example notice this part
IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons
Of cource you didnt. Or maybe you just choose to ignore it in your attempt to score some non-existent point.
I dont know how many times Ive tried to explain stuff like this to losers like you on message boards like this. And frankly Im getting pretty tired of it.
You dont know what you are talking about. Realize this fact and move on.
Experience tells me however, that soon you will be focusing on some other sentence in the document, or someone else will show up with some clever interpretation of some miniscule part of the document.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Toad I see where you are coming from, but what was the alternative?
I mostly was aiming my post at anti-American people with blinders on.
But there are not anti-americans here. There are a lot of people with diferent rational opinions. Some of them whitch doesnt agree with your are so called anti-americans....
keep blurring....
-
No, what Im saying is that congress authorized the President to use military force against Iraq.
You are trying to find some qualifiers that infringes on that right, trying to interpret it to mean something more/less/whatever.
This is quite normal when a layman is trying to read a legal document, I cant tell you how many times guys like you show up at court thinking they are Perry Mason or whatever...but it doesnt make it any less annoying.
-
you guys are great..lol
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Here's the biggest reason Iraq was a mistake.
(http://www.onlineathens.com/images/090903/osama.jpg)
He's still out there... planning the next wave...
actualy Bush said that Iraq is dangerous to freedom world with his WMD... he never ever spoke about Osama.
Osama were reason to invade Afghanistan.
Man i guess that reason to invade Syria could be fact, that US ambasador were not allowed to entry public toilets :D
-
anyway i did read nice question last week.
When amrican's smart bombs hit mostly military targets, what needs to be rebuilded for 90 bil. ? :D
It must be kinda SMART bomb :)
Its nice to see that nobody care for 10.000 death civilians whitch didnt invite US to their country......and instead of normal people you pitty horde of lala boys, whitch are supposed to kill for money. And in name
of " freedom is right given to all humans by God"
:rofl
-
See I knew this would happen. Someone (in this case the norwegian freak) thinks he understands how the law works, and he starts to pull some retarded Perry Mason routine. :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Pongo
And people have been lieing to start premptive wars since the the pyramids were made as well.
No WMD
No ties to terror.
Mean while we announce success in the war on terror..but oops. that intel came from the same lick spittle ananlyst that provided the WMD intel.
oops. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5183158/)
actualy .. whole contemporary administration appear to be one big oooops :D
-
Approaching critical mass... hold on tight
-
Why dont you look for the "real congressional document that authorized the war on Iraq" GS.
Kinda like OJ looking for the real killers...
-
Iraq was gambit; a gambit on the Arab World. While its potential for redefining the Middle East for the better is a great prospect, our leadship dropped the ball on several occasions.. (im not a big fan of gambits unless pressured.. Mystery WMD is not pressure, not when you have real WMD in DPRK...)
First:
Money...
Give me 200 billion and watch how quickly I would capture and put Osamas head on the top of the capitol as a war trophy.. (the expenditure in Iraq for the results we got is a travesty)
Second:
Logistics.. Do your history on the region from when the Mongols sacked Bagdad and Alexanders defeat of Darius and his later death in Bagdad. Then the English (1917), Ottomans, and now present day Iraq.. Its a region known for its strife and unrest of its people to foriegn parties.. Why we choose to redefine our military to shock and awe and light forces is like General Zinni said "they are all screwed up". (I would have thrown the whole farm into the conflict to expedite progress and stability of the region..Not to mention having excessive manpower to rebuild the country... not half arse it the way Rumsfield did for political reasons. btw standard military doctrine "the stuff thats been working for years" concludes more troops when in a urban enviroment, not less) Then again Rummy was a squid what does he know about ground warfare when confined to a ship.. go figure.. (Kind of like airforce telling airdefense how to operate..)
On top of that by expediting the situation in Iraq you would free up troops to hunt for the real face of terror Osama the Saudi (note the saudi part.. they were playing both sides thats pretty obvious and hence should have been repremanded accordingly..)(IMO we should watch them more closely in the future to determine if this was a fluke attack or a pattern..)
Third:
Torture....
Im not against torture or cohesion vs high value military targets if its going to save lives, But goat farmers, people caught up in family feuds, and petty criminals thats alittle overzealous dont you think..
Getting caught is as bad as the torture itself.. All nations torture in one form or another you would be naive to think otherwise. Its just they are smart enough not to advertise it.. We in our arrogance did just the opposite, thinking blackmail of the prisoners would be a good thing..(im thinking evidence.) Utter incompetence is what comes to mind in this scenario.. Then the scapgoating of junior NCO's is even more pathetic.. In short order its a cluster ****....
In a nutshell:
1: High expenditure little to show for it.. except world disenfranchisement. This includes pilferage and mismanagement of funds..
2. Pentagon / Rum/Wolfo logistical incompetence. (Troop strength etc..)
3: ******* Torture.. low priority targets and having the gaul to get caught redhanded at it; then attempting a cover up in the age of communication (internet etc..) with junior enlisted soldiers as the fall guys.. "Be all you can Be"
Got plenty more but those three things are what most I despise with the Iraqi conflict.
Its not too late we can rise out of this. We just need the current leadership to get smarter or new leadership to get smarter.
its just that simple: "Get Smarter"
2 cents
DoctorYo
-
nevermind. I decided not to get into this one. Big
to Toad though.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
What makes you guys so angry over the war in Iraq? Can you list some reasons?
Easy....
we were commited to invasion of another country, against the wishes of our people, because our arse licking prime minister (who really only wanted to curry favour in a laughable free trade agreement.) bought into the "only solution is war" mantra, which only real result was not the prevention of "rougue WMD" as our PM shouted from pillar to post (and who now quietly hopes we forget that was even the reason he used to commit us), but to heighten our chances of a terrorist attack on our own soil (a top four target woohoo!! :aok )....
and even better...we're now stuck there because we wouldn't want to send the wrong message now would we :rolleyes:
Tronsky
-
Down the road, when Iraq is a stable, rational, democratic, Arab nation of free people, a lot of you guys are going to be viewed as short sighted in my opinion.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Down the road, when Iraq is a stable, rational, democratic, Arab nation of free people
IMAO...
What will you do if iraq will not be like it in 5 years ?
Will you shame and accept that you belived in BS ?
Force some country toward Democracy will work as good as force some to communism.
lets see who will win first election.
-
Why don't you knock it off with them negative waves? Why don't you say something righteous and hopeful for a change?
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Why don't you knock it off with them negative waves? Why don't you say something righteous and hopeful for a change?
Ok you asked for it: I think SpaceShipOne is going to make it to 100 Km on the 21st, becoming the first example of General Astronautics (as in General Aviation) :)
Boy I can't wait.
Daniel
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Why don't you knock it off with them negative waves? Why don't you say something righteous and hopeful for a change?
i dont think im negative.
im just realist with much more beter knowloedge of region that you.
-
Originally posted by Steve
Wrong. People like me are the people that saved the world from Hitler after people like you stood by and did nothing...................... ...
Then, people like you will call us extremists, even as we save the world... again. Loser!
:)
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Down the road, when Iraq is a stable, rational, democratic, Arab nation of free people, a lot of you guys are going to be viewed as short sighted in my opinion.
I hope you're right.
I don't share your optimism though.
-
Originally posted by lada
IMAO...
What will you do if iraq will not be like it in 5 years ?
Will you shame and accept that you belived in BS ?
Force to some country Democracy will work as good as force some communism.
lets see who will win first election.
We've had 50 years in the Koreas to evaluate the effects of US intervention there. Can we get a ruling from you lada as to which of the Koreas is now better off?
-
Originally posted by AKIron
We've had 50 years in the Koreas to evaluate the effects of US intervention there. Can we get a ruling from you lada as to which of the Koreas is now better off?
South Korea is doing pretty well.
But contemporary situation in South Korea were not motiviation for US
link (http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?frd/cstdy:@field(DOCID+kr0023))
http://www.countryreports.org/history/korshist.htm
Motivation of US is way diferent that motivation in Korea as you did read.
Even start situation of SK and Iraqi is absolutly same.
SK were attacked by NK.
IQ were attackedby US.
SK apply for a help.
Iq never ask US to help.
SK were approved, supported by UN.
Iq ... ha ha ha..
SK were happy to not lose the war.
Iq doesnt like you coz of many reasons.
Why do you expect similary progress ?
-
Originally posted by lada
South Korea is doing pretty well.
But contemporary situation in South Korea were not motiviation for US
link (http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?frd/cstdy:@field(DOCID+kr0023))
http://www.countryreports.org/history/korshist.htm
Motivation of US is way diferent that morivation in Korea as you did read.
Even start situation of SK and Iraqi is absolutly same.
SK were attacked by NK.
IQ were attackedby US.
SK apply for a help.
Iq never ask US to help.
SK were approved, supported by UN.
Iq ... ha ha ha..
SK were happy to not lose the war.
Iq doesnt like you coz of many reasons.
Why do you expect similary progress ?
You're ignoring some of the facts lada.
-Iraq invaded Kuwait.
-Kuwait asked for help.
-The US helped and Iraq surrendered.
-Iraq reneged on terms of surrender.
-The US finished the job in Iraq started 12 years earlier.
-The US may yet have to finish the job in Korea started 50 years earlier.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
You're ignoring some of the facts lada.
-Iraq invaded Kuwait.
-Kuwait asked for help.
-The US helped and Iraq surrendered.
-Iraq reneged on terms of surrender.
-The US finished the job in Iraq started 12 years earlier.
-The US may yet have to finish the job in Korea started 50 years earlier.
wow can you post at least one link, where Bush clain that he is going to iraq to finish what has been started 12 years ago ?
edit: since we know hows NK today, we should be a sceptic about Iq future..
-
Originally posted by lada
wow can you post at least one link, where Bush clain thet he is going to iraq to finish what has been started 12 years ago ?
Isn't it obvious enough? The original terms were that they surrender all WMDs. I think you can find many references to Bush claiming that they haven't.
Here's a link to the first thing I found: http://www.state.gov/s/d/rm/17094.htm
-
Originally posted by NUKE
for starters, you say that Iraqs WMD may be in Syria, yet you also say the war against Iraq was based on a "lie" regarding WMD
We can proceed from here if you like.
wow. hook, line and sinker
nice catch toad!
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
No, what Im saying is that congress authorized the President to use military force against Iraq.
Hort, you are right that Congress gave the President authorization to use US armed forces in Iraq...BUT not with the resolution you cited. A US president would have to be even more foolish than Bush to believe that the post 9/11 resolution would give authorization to invade Iraq without being able to show cause that there was a 9/11 link. It may appear to be a carte blanche, but in the reality of US politics and law, it isn't.
The resolution to invade Iraq is H. J. RES. 114 (http://usinfo.state.gov/xarchives/display.html?p=washfile-english&y=2002&m=October&x=20021010180856eichler@pd.state.gov0.9141504&t=xarchives/xarchitem.html).
Neither resolution would be considered a declaration of war in the US however. It may be splitting hairs to someone outside of US jurisprudence, however these resolutions would be considered authorization for the use of US armed forces.
The last two US declarations of war looked like this:
December 8, 1941
JOINT RESOLUTION Declaring that a state of war exists between the Imperial Government of Japan and the Government and the people of the United States and making provisions to prosecute the same.
Whereas the Imperial Government of Japan has committed unprovoked acts of war against the Government and the people of the United States of America: Therefore be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the state of war between the United States and the Imperial Government of Japan which has thus been thrust upon the United States is hereby formally declared; and the President is hereby authorized and directed to employ the entire naval and military forces of the United States and the resources of the Government to carry on war against the Imperial Government of Japan; and, to bring the conflict to a successful termination, all of the resources of the country are hereby pledged by the Congress of the United States.
Approved, December 8, 1941, 4:10 p.m. E.S.T.
December 11, 1941
The War Resolution
Declaring that a state of war exists between the Government of Germany and the government and the people of the United States and making provision to prosecute the same.
Whereas the Government of Germany has formally declared war against the government and the people of the United States of America:
Therefore, be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, that the state of war between the United States and the Government of Germany which has thus been thrust upon the United States is hereby formally declared; and the President is hereby authorized and directed to employ the entire naval and military forces of the government to carry on war against the Government of Germany; and to bring the conflict to a successful termination, all of the resources of the country are hereby pledged by the Congress of the United States
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
No, what Im saying is that congress authorized the President to use military force against Iraq.
You are trying to find some qualifiers that infringes on that right, trying to interpret it to mean something more/less/whatever.
This is quite normal when a layman is trying to read a legal document, I cant tell you how many times guys like you show up at court thinking they are Perry Mason or whatever...but it doesnt make it any less annoying.
Wasnt there another act that specifically gave him power to invade Iraq?
-
Originally posted by Toad
Nuke, the lesson I took from VietNam was that you can't "make other people free"...
Nice to ear this thought process from an American. A welcomed change.:)
-
As I pointed out, I've held that view since 1975; nothing new here.
Don't be confused, however. I still believe there are things worth fighting for, worth dying for.
John Stuart Mill said it quite well:
War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.
-
While I agree with you in a sense Toad, as a Christian I believe that real freedom wasn't fought for or earned by any of us.
One does have to choose it though.
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
1. You keep rattling on about the U.S. invading a "sovereign nation." How does Iraq fit that description? Nearly 70% of the population, counting both Shi'ite Muslims and Kurds, were disenfranchised and subject to mass murder if they raised an eyebrow in protest.
Then those 70% should have revolted and thrown out the 30% who wanted Saddam.
And don't tell me: "But Saddam had all the tanks...Saddam had all the guns." We all watch in Iraq everyday the level of frustration that a determined group of resistance fighters can impose on a stronger force. And it seems every freaking Iraqi household has an AK-47 (BTW, the US is only limiting them to ONE per household)...and every other household has RPGs!
Plus, Saddam's army was made up of conscripts...if a majority revolt had started nationwide (not just in Basra) then there certainly would have been some very well armed revolutionaries from conscripts changing allegiance.
Originally posted by Shuckins
2. You stated that the ARVN were unworthy of our help and our blood because they did not fight ferociously enough for their freedom. Following that line of reasoning then, do you think the French deserved our help in 1944?
The French were conquered in an invasion. ARVN was fighting a civil war. Big difference.
Originally posted by Shuckins
3. Don't you think your collective condemnation of the ARVN troops is unfair? It's a little hard to give throat to lusty battle cries when one lives with the fear of North Vietnamese reprisals against one's family. This would especially be true of those troops recruited from farming villages.
His collective condemnation is unfair to the few who realized that they were fighting for their freedom. Vietnam was a civil war. If the South Vietnamese were that concerned about their freedom, it would have been the North Vietnamese families who should have been concerned about reprisals for having sons/daughters in the VietCong.
Originally posted by Shuckins
4. You act as if you think preemptive war were a new concept. Nations have launched preemptive wars to eliminate threats as far back as the time of the Old Kingdom period of ancient Egypt.
And generally, preemptive strikes are considered aggressive...like when the Japanese preemptively struck Pearl Harbor. I personally don't prefer the US to be considered aggressive.
Originally posted by Shuckins
5. Bush and Powell testified that all the evidence gathered by intelligence sources indicated that Saddam was developing wmds. They never said that it was an iron-clad certainty that the weapons were there. Were you not listening when they listed other, equally important reasons for invading Iraq and deposing Saddam?
Actually, they did. The Administration said they knew where the WMD were located (Rumsfield: "...in and around Tekrit"), they said they knew what Saddam had. Liars or incompetents...you choose.
Those "equally important reasons" were not the ones that convinced a majority of Congress to give the President authority to invade. It was the WMD factor.
Originally posted by Shuckins
6. Don't you think that Saddam needed to be deposed? Do his attempts to destabilize the region and his crimes of genocide count for nothing?
7. The U.N. had given every indication that, despite it's own resolutions to the contrary, it was going to do nothing about Saddam. If not the U.N. then who? Why not the United States?
My wallet cannot afford to give freedom to every person on the planet who lives under a despot. I'm sorry...I'm too much of an Ayn Rand Objectivist to be that altruistic. I would be willing to fight and die for my freedom and the freedom of my progeny. That is the price I am willing to pay for mine and my own. A price the majority of the Iraqi people were not willing to pay themselves, but were more than happy to have us pay for them.
Currently, you and I as taxpayers owe $900 on average each for the Iraq War to date. That does not include interest. That is not the final cost to each of us. That is $900 out of my pocket to give WELFARE to a bunch of Iraqis...some of whom are killing an American per day to show their gratitude for what my $900 has done for them.
I would have liked to have spent my $900 on a lot of other things other than to give the Iraqi people freedom. I would have liked to have seen some of the $117 Billion war budget spent on keeping US airliners safe from Stinger-type attacks...I would have liked some of that $117B spent to make airports safer without slowing me down in long lines to get to my plane...I would have liked some to have been spent on making our borders more secure. Those things would have made me feel safer. A war in Iraq has been a perfect terrorist recruiting drive...and that makes me feel less safe.
-
Iron, "Render unto Ceasar that which is Ceasar's and render unto God that which is God's."
;)
There's the freedom of/in this world and another type in the one hereafter.
Mill was right about the situation here, IMO.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Iron, "Render unto Ceasar that which is Ceasar's and render unto God that which is God's."
;)
There's the freedom of/in this world and another type in the one hereafter.
Mill was right about the situation here, IMO.
I reconsidered, see my edit. Before anyone can be free they must first choose freedom.
-
Not all enslavement is obvious though. Sometimes it's very subtle. Take communism for example. Until someone experiences freedom from communism how would they know there is something better?
-
I actually sat down here to reply to Shuckins myself.
I just got XP going well although I'm not totally "reloaded" yet.
So, let me add a few things to what Crow said:
1. Iraq fits the desecription of "sovereign nation" very well. What organization was formed to provide a forum for sovereign nations to resolve their differences? What type of nation does the UN recognize and admit? Is Iraq a member of the UN? Any other questions?
At the time of the American Revolution, what percentage of the population voted for the English King? Remember "no taxation without represenatation?" The punishment for dumping tea into Boston harbor was military in nature, wasn't it? The beginning of a war, you might even say.
2. What Crow said pretty well sums up my position. We OWED the French. They were conquered by a "rogue nation" of the worst sort. I had no problem with going to help the Kuwaitis either.
3. "Collective condemnation"
Toad:
Ask your father about the ARVN troops overall. Sure, there were specific units that were good, even great. But ask him what he thought about having a regular ARVN unit protecting his flanks.
You need to hit the books, Senna. The bottom line is the NV's wanted it far more badly than the SV's.
I stand by that; make of it what you will.
As for lusty battle cries, give me an example of any country where the people viiolently overthrew a despot where the families of the revolutionaries were not at risk from the "government".
4. Dang you Crow!
Yeah, preemptive war is nothing new, but it's not something the US is known for in the post 1900 era. It's not in our present national character nor is it something we should take pride in, IMO.
As Crow says, reflect on Pearl Harbor. From the Japanese point of view, it was an operation in the same vein as our recent invasion of Iraq. They saw us as a "clear and present danger" and chose to prempt us in the Pacific. They even attacked without declaring war. This is something you wish us to emulate?
Not I.
5. Yeah, they said the weapons were there. That's was the thrust of Powell's speech before the UN. That the WMD was there and posed a clear and present danger to world peace.
6. I'm glad SH was deposed. I despise his genocide.
HOWEVER, he should have been deposed by Iraqis, not the sons and daughters of the US.
I'm sorry, I don't think "Iraqi freedom" is worth the life of 1 US soldier in and of itself. That's a job for Iraqi boys and girls. As it is, we've lost 800+ of our best in the hope that the people of Iraq seize the opportunity to break with 1000 years of Muslim history and tradition. Pretty risky bet, IMO. Not worth 800 lives, not worth the sorrow of 800 American mothers, or wives or who knows how many American children.
That's my opinion.
7. The UN clearly was going to do nothing.
However, what have WE done?
None of you that have engaged me on this.... and I know this is a suprising positon for me to take, hard for some of you to accept... has been able to answer this:
The WMD
A) were non-existent and never were there
B) are still there but we don't know where they are
C) are in Syria, where the government is very chummy with known Islamic terrorist organizations
Which is it? Or do you have another answer?
After picking your answer, explain how that justifies invading a sovereign nation and losing 800+ of your finest citizens while saying "mission accomplished".
We HAVE NOT "ensured Iraq did not have WMD and/or banned weapons"; they may still be buried in the desert 1/2 mile from that MiG for all you and I know. And they may dig them up and "get even" as soon as we leave. It's unprovable at this point; we found essentially NOTHING.
In short, IMO, we didn't accomplish ANYTHING with respect to the reason we gave for invading a sovereign nation... for making an attack not all that dissimilar in "reason" than the Japanese attack on Pearl.
Anwer that and show me where I'm wrong.
As you know, I'm always willing to debate. ;)
-
Ah, Curly... but like the animals in Animal Farm who read "All animals are equal but some are more equal than others", they may not have known freedom but their humanity told them immediately that "THAT ain't right!".
They may not have know of something better but they intrinsically knew injustice.
-
I agree the mission is not yet accomplished. There must be an accounting of the WMD we know that he had. But, we were patient with SH for 12 years, we can be patient a while longer, imo.
-
I think that's a forlorn hope. AFAIK, we're not even really looking very hard for it in Iraq anymore.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Ah, Curly... but like the animals in Animal Farm who read "All animals are equal but some are more equal than others", they may not have known freedom but their humanity told them immediately that "THAT ain't right!".
They may not have know of something better but they intrinsically knew injustice.
Hey, I'm much better looking than Curly. ;)
I dunno Toad. Communism looks pretty good on paper. How else could it have fooled so many millions of people? No one is advantaged due to the luck of birth. Where's the injustice in that?
I only debate this with you 'cause you mentioned Vietnam. Certainly the South Vietnamese weren't up to striving for our ideals of freedom. But what did the average Vietnamese know about freedom and democracy? I'm not sure I agree that we all have an innate sense of injustice but if we do it doesn't mean we will intrinsically know what freedom is.
-
Toad
To compair our attack on Iraq with the Japanese attack on the US is way off the mark. The Japanses had been invading countries and expanding for years and saw the US as the thing that stood in the way of their conquest. The US did not threaten Japan, we merely were seen as the only possible obsticle to their greedy, bloody expansion.
The WMD
A) were non-existent and never were there
B) are still there but we don't know where they are
C) are in Syria, where the government is very chummy with known Islamic terrorist organizati
A: it is a fact they had WMD and that not all were acounted for
B: who knows if they are still there? I know that Saddam has no chance at using or rebuilding them. I know that instead of the UN getting close to declairing Iraq in full compliance without verifiying what happened to tons of WMD, we are on the ground there looking for them, not Hanx Blix
C: If they are in Syria, then that means Iraq did have WMD which alone justified the war.
When you remarked that you can't "make people be free", no one said that here, but look at Japan and Germany. Both fought like mad to fend the allies off, yet the citizens did little or nothing to fight for their freedom. Both are had been given the chance at freedom and both became free.
In Japan's case, they are a society 1000's of years old like Iraq and maybe twice as fanatic. I see no reason that Iraq cannot be free and have a healthy, rational society. I have know many Iraqis....they are not stupid and they are not fanatics. They are like you and I.
I believe we where completely justified in invading Iraq. They never complied with the inspectors and never would have.
Saddam could never be trusted to be left alone after the UN declared Iraq compliant...... and the UN was prepaired to declair Iraq compliant without accounting for tons of WMD. You say they may be in Syria? That's another matter but, two of your three choices assume Iraq had them. What do you think we should have done?
Toad, you may not think so but I fully believe our war against Iraq was justified based on the unknown state of their WMD and weapons programs. I fully believe that this is a watershed event for the good in the middle east on many levels.
The 800 plus Americans did not die for no reason, They may go down in history as the people who helped bring democracy to the Middle east......even though that was not our main goal.
Our main goal was to ensure Saddam and Iraq did not have WMD. You say they may be hidden? Well if they are, we have OUR people there looking for them, not Hans Blix and the clowns at the UN. If some got to Syria, what does that tell you? It tells me that Saddam had WMD and probably got them to Syria when he realized the US was serious, which tells me that at the very least, we took care of the Iraq threat.
It's not over either. We are not leaving unless that country is stable no matter what some are saying about Iraq having the choice to make us leave.
It's war and it's never nice, but what we did was justified and it will pay off many times over in my opinion. Why be so short sighted? Good things can and will come of this...things worth fighing for now rather than later.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
A: it is a fact they had WMD and that not all were acounted for
One comment on the "not all accounted for" phrase that has been used so much by the hawks: Consider exactly what that phrase means. We had no way of knowing exactly how much chemical/bio agents were produced by Iraq. We have a excellent idea the maximum capacity for manufacture...so we know the highest he could have aquired. But the number cited by the Administration as the "unaccounted" weapons is an estimate. It is an estimate based on as many factors as could be considered in the estimate model. HOWEVER, we know our intelligence was not perfect therefore the model is not perfect. All we know is that we estimated how much we thought he should have and asked to show what why that estimate was wrong.
Well you know what...Iraq is a 3rd world country. It is not like they had the excellent level of control over their weapons that the US does...and even the US has lost some pretty important assets and could not account for their whereabouts. It is unlikely they could have ever hoped to account for each chemical artillery shell that they fired during their war with Iran.
It is a fact that they had WMD...in 1990...14 years ago. We know how much we distroyed for them after 1991. But know one has any idea how much was used/disgarded/lost prior to that. And since they had no idea, they could not "account for them."
-
And yet UNSC 687 required
Iraq shall unconditionally accept the destruction, removal, or rendering harmless, under international supervision, of:
(a) All chemical and biological weapons and all stocks of agents and all related subsystems and components and all research, development, support and manufacturing facilities;
(b) All ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 kilometers and related major parts, and repair and production facilities;
Inspector, barging in after only 90 minutes warning: "Where is that bucket of VX your paperwork says you had?"
Logistics clerk, mashing out his cigarette and wiping the spilled coffee off his desk, tucks in his shirt and says, "geeze, I thought I saw it around here somewhere,... you got a shipping order of somethin? (mumbles) I gotta get organized."
-
From the Japaness POV the thinking is much the same Nuke.
The Japanese saw the US as a threat to their national security. They took preemptive action to address that threat.
The US saw Iraq as a threat to our national security. We took preemptive action to address that threat.
From the points of view of the attacking nation, the comparison is almost identical.
A: it is a fact they had WMD and that not all were acounted for
And they still aren't. So what did we accomplish?
B: who knows if they are still there? I know that Saddam has no chance at using or rebuilding them. I know that instead of the UN getting close to declairing Iraq in full compliance without verifiying what happened to tons of WMD, we are on the ground there looking for them, not Hanx Blix
Exactly. They may still be there. Saddam can't use them but what if Sadr and his friends know where they are and are waiting for the right moment to spirit a few out of town and FedEx them to DC? How hard are we looking?
My assessment is that WMD is a very minor priority right now compared to just getting the Iraqi government front and center on the world stage. In short, I think there's just about noone looking for them. Besides that, we've had SH himself for a long time. If anyone knew where to look, I'd think he'd be the one. So far... nothing.
So what did we accomplish? If those WMD are still there and not in our hands, they are still a threat and will be an even greater threat when we pull out.
C: If they are in Syria, then that means Iraq did have WMD which alone justified the war.
Yeah, but it's also my opinion that the WMD are an equal or greater threat to us if in Syrian control. So why aren't we taking Syria down too? If this hypothesis is correct, we have not removed the threat at all.
So what did we accomplish? Nothing.
I don't think you can compare the Germans and Japanese to Iraq. There was a huge difference in the societal mores. Germany and Japan were industrialized societies on the rise prior to the war. Given the tools, they rebuilt themselves into something better relatively quickly.
Iraq's basically a non-industrialized third world country with oil. Has been almost forever. VietNam about was the same way without the oil.
Different situation there and it bears on their transformation into a free society.
I What do you think we should have done?
More to the point, what HAVE we done that was worth 800+ soldiers to accomplish? We have neither verified nor removed any WMD threat.
800 plus Americans did not die for no reason, They may go down in history as the people who helped bring democracy to the Middle east......even though that was not our main goal.
Maybe so. But maybe not.
That would be the ONLY thing in this mess that could even begin to justify this loss of our soldiers. As I said, that task would be better left to Iraqi boys and girls.
Our main goal was to ensure Saddam and Iraq did not have WMD.
When we've found essentially NOTHING, how can you say we achieved this? Either we didn't remove the WMD or they weren't there in the first place.
You know, we got along with hundreds of thousands of Warsaw Pact troops facing us and tens of thousands of nukes pointed at us for about 40 years. Tensions ran to the red line a few times but we're all still here.
The NK's have had nukes for a while. Kim is probably even more of a fruitcake than SH. We're all still here.
Iran is on the verge of having nukes; they have an Islamic dinosaur nutbag running the show. We're all still here.
Good things can and will come of this...
Sure that's possible. I think those "good things" didn't need to be bought with American blood. That's where we differ.
I'd rather have those guys home with their families this Christmas than have Iraq rid of Hussein. Hussein was THEIR problem, not ours.
-
And they still aren't. So what did we accomplish?
well for one thing we eliminated a regime that was actively supporting terrorism.
-
Exactly. They may still be there. Saddam can't use them but what if Sadr and his friends know where they are and are waiting for the right moment to spirit a few out of town and FedEx them to DC? How hard are we looking?
Toad, I chose this quote as a point in case. If Iraq had hidden WMD, then our invasion was justified no matter if we found them or not. Sadr is not in control of Iraq, we are... and we are searching for the WMD, not trusting Hans Blix and the UN clowns.
I want to debate your points, but I feel we both are making to many points in each post. If you would like, give me one point that you would like to debate and I will debate you point by point.
-
Originally posted by Toad
The Japanese saw the US as a threat to their national security. They took preemptive action to address that threat.
They saw the US as a threat to the war they were fighting to conquer the nations of East Asia and the Western Pacific.
Japan had already occupied Korea and Manchuria and were eyeing the Dutch East Indies, French Indochina, and Burma as well as Austrailia. The US territory of the Philippines was in the way, so Japan attacked the USA.
I think it is slightly different than the parallel you attempt to draw.
-
Japan had already occupied Korea and Manchuria and were eyeing the Dutch East Indies, French Indochina, and Burma as well as Austrailia. The US territory of the Philippines was in the way, so Japan attacked the USA
hmmm, the way I understood it is that we cut off Japan's oil supply thus inhibiting their imperialistic designs. That's the short version but what I've always believed.... I'm mistaken?
-
More or less we agree Steve.
Japan got oil and scrap steel from the USA and we cut those and other supplies due to it's war in China.
Japan did not appreciate that and looked at the Western Pacific to get raw material and especially looked at the Dutch East Indies supply of oil with some envy. As the French, Dutch, and British could not adequately support asian colonies because they were preoccupied with troubles at home, they saw the USA as the only Pacific power that could stop their expansionist policy.
-
Off the top of my head, the split between USA and Europe, the split within Nato, the effect on the peace process in Israel, the increased chance of terror attack, the increase in terror attacks as admitted by the US Gov.
Increased instability in the oil producing countries of in the Middle East specifically Saudi, increase in the price of oil.
Thousands of civilians killed, innocent people abused and tortured, America shamed, good men and women serving their country dead for no good reason...over 800 now.....families split for months on end.
Stupid waste caused by evil men.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
A: it is a fact they had WMD and that not all were acounted for
Well yeah, that's why the US proposed to the UN that inspectors go Iraq and follow an agreed upon procedure to verify that there weren't any.
They never complied with the inspectors and never would have.
That's simply not true. Feel free to read the reports yourself.
http://www.unmovic.org/
You might get away with saying that Iraq wasn't fully complient with the inspectors the whole time. The one issue that comes to mind is the issue of UNMOVIC and the IAEA interviewing Iraqi scientist outside of Iraq. But even this was complied with in December of 2002.
But as far as the inspections themselves. UNMOVIC was always given prompt and full access to any site they inspected.
and the UN was prepaired to declair Iraq compliant without accounting for tons of WMD.
Can you prove this statement.
-
ahhh I see, Holden. I was looking at chapter one, while you had moved on to chapter two of the process. :)
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Hey, I'm much better looking than Curly. ;)
I dunno Toad. Communism looks pretty good on paper. How else could it have fooled so many millions of people?
One of basic for communist is to absolutly lie and do not tell truth anyone. All communist were wonderful on the papers.
Another key of communism were sheep. They used people whitch realy belived in BS they did produce. For example as US have Advisors in Iq, USSR had advisors in Czech. If you look bad at advisor, you could lost job, go to jail or be executed. And most of advisors are still alive and because everybody had to smile on them, they trough to be very popular and they realy belive that we loved them, till today
Communism is based on creating imaginar true, like anti terrorist crap.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Here's a link to the first thing I found: http://www.state.gov/s/d/rm/17094.htm
sorry Iron, but its load of crap
quote
" the 25,000 liters of anthrax and 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin "
ummmm did they throw them toilet or what ?
This document is another proof that US administration did lie and CIA is useless coz they provide fairytails and non reliable information.
-
Originally posted by lada
sorry Iron, but its load of crap
quote
" the 25,000 liters of anthrax and 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin "
ummmm did they throw them toilet or what ?
This document is another proof that US administration did lie and CIA is useless coz they provide fairy tails and non reliable information.
It wasn't the "US" that said that but the UN. Were they lying? If so then the US was duped by the UN.
"According to the United Nations Special Commission [UNSCOM], which carried out inspections in Iraq for the better part of a decade, Iraq possesses some 25,000 liters of anthrax."
As to what happened to it, that still remains to be seen. Maybe they loaded it in a truck, drove to the Iranian border and gave it to favorable winds?
-
may be its same story like those WMD whitch could be ready with in 45 mins reported by pentagon...
ooohhhh... may be they were transported on baloons from mobile WMD trucks ....
may be iraqi ate them, coz they were lack of food...
chmmm but its sure that they exist :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by AKIron
It wasn't the "US" that said that but the UN. Were they lying? If so then the US was duped by the UN.
Oh that's rich. The US killed a resolution to invade Iraq because they knew that they could not get approval from the UNSC, and now it's the fault of the UN that the US has been unable to find the WMD. :aok
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Oh that's rich. The US killed a resolution to invade Iraq because they knew that they could not get approval from the UNSC, and now it's the fault of the UN that the US has been unable to find the WMD. :aok
It's only the fault of the UN if the UN inspectors incorrectly reported the existence of the WMD. They reported this many times over several years. Are you refuting this? Are you denying that the UN reported this:
"...U.N. inspectors believe Iraq produced –- the 25,000 liters of anthrax and 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin –- is enough to kill tens of thousands of people...."
If you are denying that the UN reported that Iraq had WMD and that SH was not cooperating with their attmpts to account for and destroy them then I will be glad to dig up some more reports.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
If Iraq had hidden WMD, then our invasion was justified no matter if we found them or not.
Justification? You've been talking about "mission accomplished" and "ensuring Iraq had no WMD". Which is it?
Because we haven't found doodle. So you have the double-whammy. You can't show justificiation nor can you say "mission accomplished" for any justification you might imagine.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
"...U.N. inspectors believe Iraq produced –- the 25,000 liters of anthrax and 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin –- is enough to kill tens of thousands of people...."
If you are denying that the UN reported that Iraq had WMD and that SH was not cooperating with their attmpts to account for and destroy them then I will be glad to dig up some more reports.
UN inspectors clainmed several times, that there are no WMD left in iraq before War and they confirmed their attitude several times in past year.
They former report were about suspicion and not reality.
-
Originally posted by lada
UN inspectors clainmed several times, that there are no WMD left in iraq before War and they confirmed their attitude several times in past year.
They former report were about suspicion and not reality.
You have anything to back this up?
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
They saw the US as a threat to the war they were fighting to conquer the nations of East Asia and the Western Pacific.
Don't forget that in their POV they were just following the "approved" procedure of the colonial Western powers in Asia.
After they whipped the Russians in 1905, they became imperialistic and were even encouraged in that vein. TR suggested that "Korea should be entirelylwithin Japan's sphere of interest". The US certainly wasn't restraining them then.
Thirty year later, when they proved a bit too skilled at the game Western powers had played in Asia the friction began. The US stood in their way, a threat to their national security because of their dependence on imports.
Of oil, of all things. No similarities, you say?
-
while US' congres hear this (http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd/Iraq_Oct_2002.htm) , world hear that
http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/SC7asdelivered.htm
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-03-02-un-wmd_x.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/3135932.stm
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/content_objectid=13445375_method=full_siteid=50143_headline=-NO-WMD-IN-IRAQ--SAY-CIA-name_page.html
http://www.china.org.cn/english/features/60253.htm
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/03/03/iraq/main603691.shtml
Actualy do you see something odd about report by Mr. Blix and report for US's congres whitch were supposed to be based on UN words ?
edit damm ... somehow i posted wrong link... will find old one later.. hopefuly
Most funny thing are mobile laboratories. :D
-
Originally posted by lada
while US' congres hear this (http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd/Iraq_Oct_2002.htm) , world hear that
http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/SC7asdelivered.htm
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-03-02-un-wmd_x.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/3135932.stm
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/content_objectid=13445375_method=full_siteid=50143_headline=-NO-WMD-IN-IRAQ--SAY-CIA-name_page.html
http://www.china.org.cn/english/features/60253.htm
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/03/03/iraq/main603691.shtml
Actualy do you see something odd about report by Mr. Blix and report for US's congres whitch were supposed to be based on UN words ?
Most funny thing are mobile laboratories. :D
After 12 years the Iraqi's budged from their obstinate refusal to cooperate only when there appeared to be an imminent threat of invasion. What if the US had backed down? Would Iraq have ever again cooperated or taken the threat seriously? Here's an excerpt from your first "what the world heard" link:
"It is obvious that, while the numerous initiatives, which are now taken by the Iraqi side with a view to resolving some long-standing open disarmament issues, can be seen as “active”, or even “proactive”, these initiatives 3-4 months into the new resolution cannot be said to constitute “immediate” cooperation. Nor do they necessarily cover all areas of relevance."
-
you wantd me to prove that UN inspectors claim, there are no WMD.
I provided you sutch materials. Sort it out yourself.
-
Originally posted by lada
you wantd me to prove that UN inspectors claim, there are no WMD.
I provided you sutch materials. Sort it out yourself.
Gotta go, read only the first link. No claims of no WMD there. Will read rest when I return.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Justification? You've been talking about "mission accomplished" and "ensuring Iraq had no WMD". Which is it?
Because we haven't found doodle. So you have the double-whammy. You can't show justificiation nor can you say "mission accomplished" for any justification you might imagine.
If Iraq did in fact have hidden WMD, then that alone is justification for going in. How can you say otherwise? Just because we didn't find them? That doesn't make sense.
Maybe I should not have said "mission accomplished" as we are still carrying out the mission. Before I said that, I said "good call" a few times regarding the decision to go in. That's more accurate of my view so far.
As for ensuring Iraq had no WMD, I was refering to the fact that Hanz Blix was not going to be able to ensure it and Saddam sure wasn't. The only option we had was to go in and make sure ourselves. If they are hidden, at least WE are looking and WE control the country. If we find none, then we have esured Iraq did not have them. Either scenario is good news to me.
The "double whammy" was brought on by Saddam, no one else. He either had WMD and refused to give them up, or he didn't have them and refused to cooperate enough to ensure he did not have them.
Toad what is the worst case scenario that you can come up with in Iraq , post Saddam? Maybe some crazy person could gain control of the hidden WMD? Seems like that was the case before the war.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Don't forget that in their POV they were just following the "approved" procedure of the colonial Western powers in Asia.
After they whipped the Russians in 1905, they became imperialistic and were even encouraged in that vein. TR suggested that "Korea should be entirelylwithin Japan's sphere of interest". The US certainly wasn't restraining them then.
Thirty year later, when they proved a bit too skilled at the game Western powers had played in Asia the friction began. The US stood in their way, a threat to their national security because of their dependence on imports.
Of oil, of all things. No similarities, you say?
I thought you would have dropped this comparison by now, as it is ridiculous.
Iraq was warned for 12 years to comply with the UN and inspectors after a war they lost.
Japan was on a non-stop war rampage and the US did not threaten their security in any way. We were seen as a roadblock to their conquest and a threat to their EXPANSION .
Japan did not negotiate with us for 12 years and warn us the we faced war if we didn't comply with their demands. They attacked us in a cold, calculated move to decapitate our Pacific fleet in order to have free reign. They didn't want our compliance or peace, they wanted our fleet gone so nothing could stop them.
Simply a ridiculous compairison.
-
Nuke, if they had WMD you say there was justification. To date, there hasn't really been any WMD shown. Certainly not enough to justify an dinvasion. Where's the justification then?
Still carrying out the mission? I don't think so, Nuke. Right now the mission is get an Iraqi government out on the world stage and start getting the troops home. Don't kid yourself, at this stage the issue is "the election". The US one, not the Iraqi one. They're not looking for WMD anymore, they're looking to significantly draw down troops and minimize casualties before November.
Ensuring they didn't have them? It took an invasion to do this? No, the invasion was justified on the basis that they HAD them and that the WMD were a clear and present danger to the US.
Well, we haven't found them so the question remains: did they really have them?
If they do exist, they are still a clear and present danger to the US, perhaps even moreso, that we are doing nothing to remove.
For this, we have sacrificed 800+ of our citizens and spent untold amounts of lesser national treasure.
In short, BAD decision. Responsibility, accountability. Didn't say he lied or misled. I said BAD decision.
Maybe some crazy person could gain control of the hidden WMD? Seems like that was the case before the war.
So 800+ dead for no change sounds good to you? Not me. BAD decision.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
I thought you would have dropped this comparison by now, as it is ridiculous.
I'd have thought you'd have done a bit more research on the origins of WW2 in the Pacific and realized that Japan felt the US was a threat to their nation and struck preemptively. Just as the US thought Iraq was a threat and struck preemptively.
Japan was warned for years not to try to emulate the Western powers conquest of Asian countries.
Japan was on a Western power emulation trip of "conquer and colonialize". The US cut off oil exports to them and they were totally dependent on oil importation. There's that oil thing again.
Again, I think you need to review how the Western powers had behaved in Asia prior to Japan coming of age by whipping Russia in 1905. Post 1905, when Japan then continued to emulate the Western powers and grow stronger, they suddenly found out the Western powers didn't consider them a legitimate colonial power.
Do you find it in the least strange that the US had no problem with other colonial powers in Asia doing essentially what the Japanese did? IE: colonizing with force and/or the threat of force? How about the US actions in the Phillippines in the late 1800's early 1900's?
-
Originally posted by AKIron
After 12 years the Iraqi's budged from their obstinate refusal to cooperate only when there appeared to be an imminent threat of invasion.
Iraq wasn't obstinately refusing to cooperate for the entire 12 years. It was something that developed over time. You can read the UNSCOM reports and acchievements yourself here...
http://www.un.org/Depts/unscom/
-
I don’t have any answers in this thread, only questions. Based on the threat of Iraqi development of WMD including nuclear weapons which had been talked about by GB1 himself, I was dumbfounded when he stopped the first conflict (1991) when he did. But that was a mission to liberate Kuwait – job done. So in subsequent years, it was quite alarming to hear how Saddam was in breach of UN resolutions, and being allowed to get away with it during a period of complacency in the Clinton years. Worst of all was his being able to kick out the weapons inspectors, and to get away with it.
So when GB2 declared a war on terror, and links were identified between Iraq and AQ (AQ suicide pilots’ families being paid $25,000 by Saddam), and the CIA and MI6 seemed so sure that WMD were in Iraq, I believed that the war was justified. We know that Saddam did have chemical weapons, as these were deployed against the northern Kurds in 1988. And I doubt that anyone believes he was above trading his WMD with other terror groups like AQ.
Some questions: [list=1]- How could the intelligence services have got it so wrong?
- If the WMD were indeed moved to a sympathetic neighbour like Syria, wouldn’t the CIA satellites have been able to track the vehicle movements?
- Before the war could begin, there was what seemed like endless UN prevarication which went on for several months. Would this have been enough to provide Saddam with a window of opportunity to move all WMD out of Iraq?
- The US has Saddam and many of his agents in custody. How come the CIA has not been able to get the information they want about WMD whereabouts?
That’s all for now.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Maybe some crazy person could gain control of the hidden WMD? Seems like that was the case before the war.
So 800+ dead for no change sounds good to you? Not me. BAD decision. [/B]
If fact there has been a big change in case you haven't noticed. Now, there is no insane person in control of the country or it's weapons.
Yes, there has been a change and the 800 + did not die for no reason.
Your worst case scenario is just that, a scenario. It is a fact that before the war, an insane man was in control of any WMD and programs that existed.
-
Originally posted by lada
while US' congres hear this (http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd/Iraq_Oct_2002.htm) , world hear that
http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/SC7asdelivered.htm
OK, already addressed this one.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-03-02-un-wmd_x.htm
Nothing from the UN in this one.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/3135932.stm
"Mr Straw argued that the whole international community had agreed Iraq's weapons programmes had posed - the issue had been what to do about it. People did not need the ISG report for evidence of that threat, he said. It was already shown in volumes of reports from UN inspectors."
Hmmmm, doesn't sound like denial of WMD to me.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/content_objectid=13445375_method=full_siteid=50143_headline=-NO-WMD-IN-IRAQ--SAY-CIA-name_page.html
Dead link.
http://www.china.org.cn/english/features/60253.htm
"In an interview with Swedish Radio, Blix said the chemical weapons protective suits and gas masks found by coalition troops in Iraq several days ago could not prove that Iraq had WMD."
Nor does it prove they didn't.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/03/03/iraq/main603691.shtml
"Iraq apparently had no significant weapons of mass destruction after 1994, according to a newspaper account of a United Nations report due to be released Tuesday."
Uh, according to a newspaper account? How about just linking a UN document/report that says Iraq has no WMD?
Actualy do you see something odd about report by Mr. Blix and report for US's congres whitch were supposed to be based on UN words ?
edit damm ... somehow i posted wrong link... will find old one later.. hopefuly
Most funny thing are mobile laboratories. :D
-
Originally posted by Toad Look chum, you come in here and slam my service because I was not a front-line combat troop.
No I did not. I said that it was big talk/opinion from someone who was on a jet thirty thousand feet up. I still feel the same however I erased the thread.
I take extreme umbrage to that. You still have not apologized for this insult.
Thats why I erased my post.
The implication is that NO ONE who wasn't in combat really "served". That's an incredible position, particulary given that nearly 90% of the Army forces in VN were in "support" roles.
I never said that. What I said has nothing to do with service. What I said pertains to opinions and personal experience. You lack the personal experience of jumping from a huey to trot off into the jungle. You lack the personal experience to comment on fighting techniques, habbits, and overall capability of front line ground units during that war. My father did those things and observed some things and I've spoken to him about what he saw (cas I asked) and felt.
I think even your father would tell you that you stepped on your crank with golf shoes here.
He would tell me that you are offended and feel insecure with your own service towards those who served on the ground in the infantry.
You have NEVER addressed the South VietNamese and the "willingness to fight for their own freedom" question, other than to say you disagree.
Fine, disagree.
I disagree with you here to some extent because an army is mobilized from the very top levels of gov. At the individual and group levels, most men behave the same when there is danger. They get scared and want to live. Their training allows them to become capable military units. The ARVN suffered alot of losses during the war. Of course there were some that did not do well though. My own father said that if you were there saw them fight, you would know that the war was won and the communists could not be beat anymore (late war).
But the only thing you've really posted in support slams on my service.
"And thank you for your own service."
in a post above, I thanked you for your service.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
. Now, there is no insane person in control of the country or it's weapons.
How do you KNOW that? How do you KNOW some crazy little bugger isn't sitting waiting for the US to pull out so that he can get the bad stuff out of the country to his terrorist buddies in Palm Beach?
Again, we didn't find and destroy ANYTHING of significance in the WMD lines we accused him of having.
If it is there, you have no clue who might have access to it.
No change, really. As you admit, his true WMD capability was unknown before the invasion.
It's still unknown. NO CHANGE.
-
And BTW my father was trained by the US Army in the US. He has and still does have a huge respect for the US military. He served with ARVN and sometimes US military (army) out in the field.
-
If Iraq becomes a democracy where law and individual rights are valued then we will have succeeded and the world one big step closer to a better place for all, whether that was our goal or not. Way too early to call this one. Even if this happens I suspect that 15-20 years down the road there will be many claiming that it was inevitable, much like the fall of the Soviet Union.
-
Originally posted by senna
No I did not. I said that it was big talk/opinion from someone who was on a jet thirty thousand feet up. I still feel the same however I erased the thread.
So you think only combat soldiers are entitled to an opinion? Or that they have the only valid opinion?
Thats why I erased my post.
Which is not an apology.
You lack the personal experience of jumping from a huey to trot off into the jungle. You lack the personal experience to comment on fighting techniques, habbits, and overall capability of front line ground units during that war.
Those experiences have essentially no bearing on the question of whether or not the SV were willing to fight as hard to defend their freedom as the NV were to deny them of it.
History has spoken quite clearly on that issue and it has nothing to do with how many times your father jumped off a huey.
He would tell me that you are offended and feel insecure with your own service towards those who served on the ground in the infantry.
Hardly. I chose my branch based on my family tradition. I'm quite proud of my service and what I did for my country. The infantry did what their country asked of them and so did I. Hard concept for you to grasp I guess. You appear to believe that only the infantry serves. Which is BS of the highest order.
Of course there were some that did not do well though.
Again, history has already spoken on this issue. They were routed once the US troops were no longer there. That's about 15 years from when Kennedy first sent advisors to them. All the training, all the supply, all the help we gave them made no difference. There is ONE reason for that in my opinion. Simply because the NV's wanted it worse than the SV's.
In a post above, I thanked you for your service.
Yes, after denigrating it. Which you continue to do even now.
-
Originally posted by Toad
How do you KNOW that? How do you KNOW some crazy little bugger isn't sitting waiting for the US to pull out so that he can get the bad stuff out of the country to his terrorist buddies in Palm Beach?
Again, we didn't find and destroy ANYTHING of significance in the WMD lines we accused him of having.
If it is there, you have no clue who might have access to it.
No change, really. As you admit, his true WMD capability was unknown before the invasion.
It's still unknown. NO CHANGE.
Saddams WMS capability was not unknown, he was very capable and willing to produce them. What was not known was weather or not he still retained active WMD
So you think leaving Saddam to control the country and any WMD , compared to the US controling the country and removing any chance that Saddam would continue to develope and use them, is no change?
You keep pointing out that you fear someone might access WMD, which is funny.....because if WMD are there, the invasion was justified. IF WMD are hidden, we are justified simply because they are there when they were not supposed to be, right?
Now, if no WMD are ever found, at the very least we removed the threat that Saddam posed as a known developer and user of WMD.
How can you say no change?
BIG changes my friend.
-
Thats why I erased my post.
Which is not an apology.
I appologize if I offended you in regards to your service. I did not mean for it to sound that way. You know how things get on this BBS, outa contrlol.
-
You're reading but no comprehending.
You keep saying they were there and that justifies the invasion.
Except for one thing. Nothing substantial has been found. On that basis, pretty hard to justify, eh?
UNLESS.. UNLESS.. they're there and we haven't found them! Ah-HA!
But if we haven't found them, we haven't accomplished diddle. They'll still be there after we leave, won't they? You think just because SH isn't running the place they won't be a threat to us after we leave? Upon what do you base this conclusion?
If there were no weapons, we were fools to lose 800+ lives over that, don't you agree?
If there WERE weapons, they still constitute a threat in the wrong hands, don't you agree?
-
Originally posted by Toad
You're reading but no comprehending.
You keep saying they were there and that justifies the invasion.
Except for one thing. Nothing substantial has been found. On that basis, pretty hard to justify, eh?
UNLESS.. UNLESS.. they're there and we haven't found them! Ah-HA!
But if we haven't found them, we haven't accomplished diddle. They'll still be there after we leave, won't they? You think just because SH isn't running the place they won't be a threat to us after we leave? Upon what do you base this conclusion?
If there were no weapons, we were fools to lose 800+ lives over that, don't you agree?
If there WERE weapons, they still constitute a threat in the wrong hands, don't you agree?
Toad, Im saying *IF* WMD are there and hidden ( like your B scenario) then that alone justifies the invasion. I never said one way or the other in buildup to the war that Iraq had WMD.
You keep missing a major point. The point is the Saddam was known to have them, didn't account for tons of them and was about 10 days away from being declared by good 'ol Hans Blix to be in full compliance.
If no WMS are found or they are proven not to have existed, then that would be ideal wouldn't it? No more Saddam to rebuild them and no crazies to dig them up, right?
If they are found, even after we leave, and are dug up by some crazy, then the war will be justified based on their existance alone. Right? Hidden WMD would justifiy the war, correct?
And no, we are not fools for invading and losing 800+ lives. We eliminated the threat Saddam posed by being in control of Iraq and it's WMD programs, plus other banned weopons. We took action when it was clear the UN would not.
Maybe the war in Alfghanistan is no change because we didn't wipe out the Taliban, capture Osama and Omar? Who is to say that the Taliban wont take over when we leave? I guess you would have to say that was not justified either.
The Iraq situation is not over as you know. I feel you are being pretty short sighted.
-
NO CHANGE.
Wrong, a multi-billion dollar regime w/ money to spare that supported terrorism has been eradicated.
-
Follow the idea all the way through. In Scenario B if we LEAVE before we find them, what have we accomplished?
Those weapons would theoretically still be there. If you're saying it was worth 800 soldiers to remove SH and still leave the weapons, again I disagree.
We didn't go in to remove the weapons from SH's control or just to remove SH. We went to REMOVE THE WEAPONS. Clearly that hasn't been done and it's highly unlikely to be accomplished before the Iraqis hold their elections.
Which will lead directly to us getting the heck out of Iraq. WITHOUT finding the weapons. IMO.
Here's a major point YOU overlook. There's lots of guys that don't like us that have nukes already. Like Kim Jong Il, for instance; yet we don't consider him an immediate threat to the US despite the fact that he's selling/sold nuke tech and uranium to other bad guys, like Libya.
So, given that SH's WMD obviously weren't on the firing line and were so well hidden that neither Blix nor all the US troops in Iraq could find a trace of them.... how much more of a threat was SH than Kim? Did we HAVE to go?
Sure doesn't look like it to me now. It did then, I admit. I suppported the invasion based on the weapons being an immediate threat. But after every mission there has to be a debrief, an after action assessment. My assessment is BAD DECISION. Even though I supported it, it looks like I was wrong in doing so.
Anyway, as I pointed out, we lived 50+ years with Russian missiles pointed at us and ours at them.
If no WMS are found or they are proven not to have existed, then that would be ideal wouldn't it?
Ideal except for one thing. We wasted 800+ American lives for nothing.
You know, it's generally accepted that the death of my Uncle John shortly after D-Day near St. Lo led directly to the early death of my grandmother. She never got over the loss of John and her health deteriorated rapidly after they got the telegram.
To this day, my mother isn't over the loss of her brother.
Tell me, if this example of yours were the end result, how would you feel about the loss of YOUR son in this cause?
-
Originally posted by Steve
Wrong, a multi-billion dollar regime w/ money to spare that supported terrorism has been eradicated.
But that wasn't the mission was it? WMD was the mission. There's been no change in the status of those WMD's.
-
The only change I see is that a multi-billion dollar regime with comparatively dubious ties to terrorism has now been upstaged by a multi-billion dollar regime that's engaged in a ludicrous war.
Oh, and that 800+(tens of thousands) are no longer around to see it go down.
It oughta kinda piss off the folks here who screech "I am a tax payer!", and who kneel at the altar of a 450 dollar tax cred meanwhile Sam's lifting three times that amount out of your pocket and dumping it into the bank accounts of weasels.
People are getting rich, and people are dying.
You and me? Nothing. We're just cheerleading it on or making arses of ourselves by questioning it. It really has nothing to do with anybody here.
Good times.
-
Toad, I think we have both made our points understood and are not likley to agree. The thread has run it's course and is getting redundant. Can we agree to let the thread die now?
for your time and thanks for keeping it civil, as you always do.
I'll stay out of the thread now, I have nothing more to add really.
-
Originally posted by Nash
It really has nothing to do with anybody here.
Well at least for those who don't vote for the POTUS.
-
Nuke, I'm always willing to join in civil discourse.
Before you go, I would like you to answer that last question though.
You and I both know how easily a politician can spend someone else's money. I suggest to you they can spend someone else's son almost as easily and with as little thought.
How would you feel if it was your son? If for all of your tomorrows you were going to feel the pang of his loss?
Is what we've accomplished worth his life? Was it necessary?
For myself, the answer would clearly be "no".
How about you?
-
Yeah Nuke... I'm kinda interested too.
Take a sec, and imagine your son died over there.
Then take another sec, and fit that into the overall picture of what's going on in Iraq... of what is accomplished, finally.
I'm as interested as Toad in your answer.
Toad, AFAIK, the SC had zero to do with this war... nada.
If anything, this should concern one who thinks the SC is the sole power in the land.
-
Nice try, Nash.
We could start another entire thread about my theory of the SC's role in the US government and the evolution of our society if you like.
I suppose Apathy could/would make the case that the SC "getting away with" its decision led directly to this war.
However, that's not really this thread now is it?
You say discussing this has nothing to do with anyone here. I disagree. My reply is that it does for those who are involved in helping pick the next POTUS. Just a few US citizens turning the issues round and round and talking about them. Nothing for you here... might as well move along. Or do you think this war isn't a US election issue?
;)
-
Lol, trying to shut me up due to this being "an election issue" when in fact your election is a consistent reccurrence that now happens to fall during a military occupation of international proportions that could very well last for 20 years.
Do you reckon the world ought to shut up during this 20 year period just because you guys are having an election or two?
shreck that.
Stick to guns and that argument would serve you better.
Meddle on the international stage and I say wotevah the shreck I want.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Nuke, I'm always willing to join in civil discourse.
Before you go, I would like you to answer that last question though.
You and I both know how easily a politician can spend someone else's money. I suggest to you they can spend someone else's son almost as easily and with as little thought.
How would you feel if it was your son? If for all of your tomorrows you were going to feel the pang of his loss?
Is what we've accomplished worth his life? Was it necessary?
For myself, the answer would clearly be "no".
How about you?
My answer is: No life is "worth" losing for any reason. In war there is always death and I do not believe we went to war giving little thought to American lives on the line. What I personally feel is that I hope I never have to have anyone I know die for any war.
What we have accomplished speaks for itself in my opinion, but like I said, I think we both made our points many times now.
Toad, I wanted to answer you and now I hope this thread will die.
-
btw Toad, the 1st half of your post argues for things that, as you say in the same sentence, have nothing to do with this thread.
So okay...
But the 2nd half? That was retarded, my friend. And speaking as a friend, it looked like a last ditch effort. Because when you stop debating and start pulling the rug from under your opponent's *right* to even debate in the first place, yer sunk.
Especially when you do it by way of saying it has to do with picking the next POTUS... which you don't really do. And especially when it comes to international affairs, which you seem to think the Iraq war is exempt from.
-
Not trying to shut you up at all. Just disagreeing with you as usual.]
It really has nothing to do with anybody here.
YOU were the one saying the war has nothing to do with anyone here, which is obviously wrong.
Some of us are going to vote on whether Bush should continue on as POTUS. I'd say that has something to do with the war. Disagree all you like, post all you like. Just because YOU aren't votnig doesn't mean it has nothing to do with those of us that are voting. You're just wrong with that statement.
As for you last post, try it again in English or something. I have no idea what point you're trying to make there as I have never, ever suggested anyone here has no "right" to post their opinion.
Either I'm not writing clearly or you're in a different astral plane when you read what I wrote.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Nothing for you here... might as well move along.
;)
Ah, perhaps this? In reply to your:
We're just cheerleading it on or making arses of ourselves by questioning it. It really has nothing to do with anybody here.
I guess that's just my way of pointing out that if this discussion bores you, you might as well go find somewhere else to sling some kerosene.
Seems that's what you enjoy most.
-
Bulchit.
And marks for the "astral plane" garbage.
And you are the worst possible spokesman for this.
If Kerry wanted this fiasco of a war, yet was going to nominate SC Judges to your liking, you would vote for him. You won't deny that.
And we would still have this war. And Martha Stewart would still go to jail. And Roe v Wade would still get kicked around 20 years from now.
You "disagree with me as usual" because a year + ago we had way opposing views on this war and fought about it. You've now come around, but it was your hypocracy then and it is your hypocracy now that bugs me.
Trying to do the Rude "outsider" routine has never seemed other than parting rounds of the routed.
-
regime with comparatively dubious ties to terrorism has
what's dubious about paying off the families of suicide bombers?
Nice try, liberal spin attempt DENIED
-
Steve, if yer so interested in that angle, why don't you take a glance at who those phat 25g checks were made out TO....
You know, the guys who actually kill people with those bombs.
Are they doing it for money? If we wipe on the financial backing we'll have peace?
Right...
So if that's such a big deal, why aren't the actual BOMBERS getting invaded?
-
Let me get this straight, since suicide bombers wouldn't be completed erased, since terrorist training camps in Iraq can be built elsewhere we shouldn't do anything?
Oh, and that 800+(tens of thousands) are no longer around to see it go down.
What tens of thousands?
How many Iraqis' would have died to Hussein and his thugs in the last year if he was in power?
You are overtly supporting the activities of Hussein's government by saying we shouldn't have gone there. You do know that thousands were being raped, tortured, and murdered every month by Hussein's govt right?
Wait! Let me guess, the rape rooms, prisons and mass burial sites, along w/ countless testimonies are all propaganda right? Saddam was a fine, peaceful ruler and Bush made it all up.
-
But that wasn't the mission was it? WMD was the mission
It was not the sole reason no. Certainly it was the major reason and I am as disappointed as anyone that more WMD has not been found. The possiblity also exists that we are not being told everything. I'm not postulating that this is my opinion.. just that it's possible.
-
Before ya fall into the Toad-like tendancy to make something up on my behalf then argue against it....
slow down....
I'm not particularly fond of rape rooms, prisons and mass burial sites.
I'm not fond of a lot of things.
But there are some things worth fighting for.
And there are some things worth fighting for.... yourself.
Nothing you mention hampers your ability to BBQ up a nice steak in your back yard under a summery sky.
Don't die so that others can do the same.
You and your lot have died enough for others. It's their turn to pay up if they want it.
-
LOL, shows how little you really know about me, doesn't it?
This election is one instance where I'm departing from my SC dictum. I still think the SC is the most important of the three branches of government.
Still, I won't be voting for Bush and I know he's far more likely to nominate judges to my liking than Kerry. Sort of blows your entire thesis, professor.
Sorry but I see no hypocrisy in my positions, then or now. I'm not pretending to have qualities or beliefs that I do not really have.
I believed in the justification given for the war in the pre-war period. However, a year + later and SH in hand for 6 months it seems that the information was incorrect. One quality that I do have, or trait if you prefer, is that I routinely review my positions. Call it "post mission debriefing" if you like. I've reviewed my postion on this war and I admit it certainly did not turn out the way I thought it would.
Note again that I have not accused anyone of lying or misleading. It just turned out to be a bad decision based on faulty intelligence. This ties in with another long held belief of mine. As I have said many times, there has to be responsibility and accountability.
Bush is the guy that sent us to war; it was his decision as President. It turned out to be a bad one. Now, I feel he has to be held accountable for that decision. What's done is done but you know, if you keep holding Presidents responsible for what they do and say, maybe it'll make a difference eventually.
Far better to do that than just ignoring it when they look into the camera and lie directly to the citizenry, don't you think?
Looks like you found something to interest you here after all. Please post more! :rofl
-
Originally posted by NUKE
My answer is: No life is "worth" losing for any reason. .
That's an answer but not to the question I asked.
I asked how you'd feel about your son dying for what we've accomplished in Iraq.
For example, I have two draft age sons. It would destroy me to lose either of them in war or in an everyday car accident.
However, I like to think I'd be somewhat comforted if I lost a son chasing Osama in Afghanistan rather than WMD that have never been found in Iraq. There's a huge difference there, isn't there?
-
Although I said I was out, I can't help myself....
Please start a new thread, this one if off topic and dead.....
Thanks.
-
Originally posted by Nash
Before ya fall into the Toad-like tendancy to make something up on my behalf then argue against it....
This is a strawman right here, unless you can back it up.
What did I make up and pretend you said?
Jeez, Nash, you're going childish here.
-
Originally posted by Toad
That's an answer but not to the question I asked.
I asked how you'd feel about your son dying for what we've accomplished in Iraq.
For example, I have two draft age sons. It would destroy me to lose either of them in war or in an everyday car accident.
However, I like to think I'd be somewhat comforted if I lost a son chasing Osama in Afghanistan rather than WMD that have never been found in Iraq. There's a huge difference there, isn't there?
There would be no difference to the pain you felt for the loss.
Toad, please join me and stop this stupid thread.... it has become off topic and the points we are making are redundant now.
-
Nash, Steve, Toad
Please start a new thread....... this one is over-cooked.
-
Originally posted by Toad
LOL, shows how little you really know about me, doesn't it?
This election is one instance where I'm departing from my SC dictum. I still think the SC is the most important of the three branches of government.
Still, I won't be voting for Bush and I know he's far more likely to nominate judges to my liking than Kerry. Sort of blows your entire thesis, professor.
Sorry but I see no hypocrisy in my positions, then or now. I'm not pretending to have qualities or beliefs that I do not really have to have. I believed in the justification given for the war in the pre-war period. However, a year + later and SH in hand for 6 months it seems that the information was incorrect. One quality that I do have, or trait if you prefer, is that I routinely review my positions. Call it "post mission debriefing" if you like. I've reviewed my postion on this war and I admit it certainly did not turn out the way I thought it would.
Note again that I have not accused anyone of lying or misleading. It just turned out to be a bad decision based on faulty intelligence. This ties in with another long held belief of mine. As I have said many times, there has to be responsibility and accountability.
Bush is the guy that sent us to war; it was his decision as President. It turned out to be a bad one. Now, I feel he has to be held accountable for that decision. What's done is done but you know, if you keep holding Presidents responsible for what they do and say, maybe it'll make a difference eventually.
Far better to do that than just ignoring it when they look into the camera and lie directly to the citizenry, don't you think?
Looks like you found something to interest you here after all. Please post more! :rofl
Woot! yer making those little hand slapping smileys now?
Heh cool.
I like how you say "shows how little you know about me" then say things about yourself now that fly in the face of your oft professed stances here....
What am I... a mind reader?
I'm glad to hear you re-evaluate your positions. More than I can say for some.
But you got taken to the bank over this war. Totally rooked. And despite how much I like hearing how eloquently your arguments against the war now sound, you tried yer best to make arses of me and others like me for the very stances you now take.
Pretend like yer pwning Nuke. It aint nothing. It was people like you with your mindset that brought about the war.... the very same people yer now arguing against and acting all proud about.
Who cares if you can re-evaluate? Try to do something like that beforehand and we'd all be in better shape.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
There would be no difference to the pain you felt for the loss.
For me personally. In one instance I could see the purpose. In the other I couldn't.
Stop the thread?
And have Nash accuse me yet again of trying to "shut him up"?
Not bloody likely! :rofl
Besides, it's not really that far to 500!
Go team go!
-
Originally posted by Toad
For me personally. In one instance I could see the purpose. In the other I couldn't.
Stop the thread?
And have Nash accuse me yet again of trying to "shut him up"?
Not bloody likely! :rofl
Besides, it's not really that far to 500!
Go team go!
well, in that case.. count me back in! :)
-
Perhaps most people here a just a bit more complicated than posts on a BBS can describe? You don't have to be a mind reader, just a realist. You've never met me yet you act as if you know everything about me from BBS posts. Is that a problem with me or you?
Like most folks, I make decisions on a cost/benefit basis. I pointed out I still believe the SC is the most important aspect when picking a President. However, in this election, the cost/benefit is moving that consideration lower down the list for me. I also believe Presidents have to be held accountable.
So, right now, in the short term, it's more important to me to hold the President accountable and risk putting some judges on the SC that I won't like. That now becomes a problem for a later time.
Pretending that this sort of evaluation of cost/benefit is somehow unusual or unique may make you feel all proud and oh so smart but in reality you know it isn't.
Note well you haven't seen me say there were no weapons. I've repeatedly said there's three possibilities that I can see, none of which justify the loss of 800 soldiers. Therefore I think that I have not the very stances you took. Not hardly.
With the information I had and the research I did prior to the war, I felt the Administration had made the case. Now, after it's essentially done, I have not seen the evidence that I said I would require. There's no inconsistency there.
BTW, did YOU have absolute proof of your position prior to the war? What would you have done if the troops had found the WMD?
Oh, btw, I fail to see where I'm acting "all proud" about any of this.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Perhaps most people here a just a bit more complicated than posts on a BBS can describe? You don't have to be a mind reader, just a realist. You've never met me yet you act as if you know everything about me from BBS posts. Is that a problem with me or you?
Like most folks, I make decisions on a cost/benefit basis. I pointed out I still believe the SC is the most important aspect when picking a President. However, in this election, the cost/benefit is moving that consideration lower down the list for me. I also believe Presidents have to be held accountable.
So, right now, in the short term, it's more important to me to hold the President accountable and risk putting some judges on the SC that I won't like. That now becomes a problem for a later time.
Pretending that this sort of evaluation of cost/benefit is somehow unusual or unique may make you feel all proud and oh so smart but in reality you know it isn't.
Note well you haven't seen me say there were no weapons. I've repeatedly said there's three possibilities that I can see, none of which justify the loss of 800 soldiers. Therefore I think that I have not the very stances you took. Not hardly.
With the information I had and the research I did prior to the war, I felt the Administration had made the case. Now, after it's essentially done, I have not seen the evidence that I said I would require. There's no inconsistency there.
BTW, did YOU have absolute proof of your position prior to the war? What would you have done if the troops had found the WMD?
Oh, btw, I fail to see where I'm acting "all proud" about any of this.
You consistently hold tight to a certain position, then in one new sentence you blame me for believing it while you go on to say something completely different.
whatever.... that's nothing.
"With the information I had and the research I did prior to the war, I felt the Administration had made the case. Now, after it's essentially done, I have not seen the evidence that I said I would require. There's no inconsistency there."
What is that? First you argue with Nuke for taking that same stance, and then you take it yourself?
Let me paraphrase you here:
"The invasion was just because there might have been WMD but now that we can't find them the war is unjust."
Do I need to parse that for you or do you get it?
-
Originally posted by Toad
BTW, did YOU have absolute proof of your position prior to the war?
I had my instincts, but no... I didn't have proof one way or the other.
That's why I was against the war.
If there were proof..... then....
But there wasn't.... so....
What's yer excuse?
-
Originally posted by Steve
what's dubious about paying off the families of suicide bombers?
Nice try, liberal spin attempt DENIED
It's dubious because of the reason SH started handeding out cash to the families of the suicide bombers.
Isreal started plowing down homes of the families in the Gaza Strip and West Bank. SH started handing out the cash so the families could rebuild thier homes.
"How many Iraqis' would have died to Hussein and his thugs in the last year if he was in power?"
That does justify coalition members killing Iraqis. Simplistic analogy but, if a psycho was planning on killing someone in your town, does that justify you killing someone else in your town?
-
There was plenty of proof that Saddam was continually violating UN resolutions. He made WMDs, wouldn't prove he destroyed them, and balked at cooperating with the UN. Additionally, he paid people to blow themselves up killing Israeli civilians and attempted to assasinate George Bush. Why is it so hard to believe he was a very real threat to world security?
-
AKIron - things have been said in so many different ways that.... and I'm speaking for myself.... I aint gonna argue with fiction.
Yer post is that.
And it causes some people here to continually dance around in circles arriving at nothing.
I totally wish we could wipe the slate clean and come at this fresh.
-
Fiction? What part Nash?
-
lol....
The part where I say X.
Wherein you say: "X? Surely not!"
And I say: "Lookit, x is a fallacy"
And you say: "FU mang YOU'RE a fallacy!"
No... I believe you asked a serious question. The problem is that if you were really open to hearing an answer to it, you'd have heard it already.
-
end this gay thread you tards!
-
Nuke,
Threads are like birds in the night.
You set one free, and off it flies.
Don't try to control one. It looks retarded.
-
Originally posted by Nash
Nuke,
Threads are like birds in the night.
You set one free, and off it flies.
Don't try to control one. It looks retarded.
lol :lol
-
That does justify coalition members killing Iraqis.
Yes it does. The Iraqi's knew full well we were coming. They didn't have to take up arms.
-
I'm afraid of Americans...God is an American...
-
Originally posted by Steve
Yes it does. The Iraqi's knew full well we were coming. They didn't have to take up arms.
One Iraqi to another during the invasion of the US Homeland:
"The Yanks didn't have to take up arms. Dammit they KNEW we were coming!"
Man, death to a gun would be a mercy killing if such an invasion were attempted. Why do you hold it against the Iraqis?
-
When the rain comes, they run and hide their heads
They might as well be dead
When the rain comes
When the sun shines, they slip into the shade
To sip their lemonade
When the sun shines
-
Yeah?
Wot you honestly think Lennon would have to say about this war?
He's dead, so yer off the hook.
Don't quote someone for your own purposes if u know in your heart that person stands against you.
-
Originally posted by Nash
Yeah?
Wot you honestly think Lennon would have to say about this war?
He's dead, so yer off the hook.
Don't quote someone for your own purposes if u know in your heart that person stands against you.
Im done with this thread, just posting for the hell of it.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Im done with this thread, just posting for the hell of it.
You said that... a few times... :D
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Im done with this thread, just posting for the hell of it.
Sure okay...
The ones you look up to say different than you.
Reflect on that.
Have a good night, and finish yer damn 190!
-
Before you cross the street, take my hand
Life is what happens to you while you're busy making other plans
-
Originally posted by Nash
Sure okay...
The ones you look up to say different than you.
Reflect on that.
Have a good night, and finish yer damn 190!
Nash, honestly I'm done with serious discussion in this thread...
I'm now just quoting from my idol, John Lennon.
Although he is my idol, I do not conform to his visions...I am my own person.
-
Lennon thinks this war is a joke.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Don't forget that in their POV they were just following the "approved" procedure of the colonial Western powers in Asia.
After they whipped the Russians in 1905, they became imperialistic and were even encouraged in that vein. TR suggested that "Korea should be entirelylwithin Japan's sphere of interest". The US certainly wasn't restraining them then.
Roosevelt realised that the Philippines, which he privately termed "our heel of Achilles," were at the mercy of Japan.
His solution was to cultivate friendly relations with Japan and foster a balance of power between Japan and Russia. In 1905 the Japanese disavowed designs on the Philippines, and TR secretly recognized Japan's power in Korea.
Roosevelt’s recognition of Korea as within Japanese sphere was one of pragmatism as both China and Japan had claims to the peninsula but the military advantage easily belonged to Japan.
TR also mediated the end to the Russo-Japanese war (where Yamamoto lost some of his fingers) and even though they "whipped" the Russians the war ended with a discussion.
Diplomacy is the art of balancing compromise. I believe your analogy to be stretched.
-
Crap Nash...... how could we know that?
-
How does it feel to be one of the beatiful people
Now that you know who you are
what do you want to be?
pure freaking genious.
-
People asking questions lost in confusion
Well I tell them there's no problem, only solutions
Well they shake their heads and look at me as if I've lost my mind
I tell them there's no hurry...
I'm just sitting here doing time
-
Nope.
I said at the outset, before the war, that I'd support the government position and give them the benefit of the doubt. I also said that I would require proof of their charges after the war or I would not support Bush.
I think Scholz even dug up a quote to that effect very recently.
That's exactly what has happened. That time has come.
I don't think it's a problem of my consistency as much as a problem of you remembering what I actually said.
I think you categorized me early on and quit listening. Or reading.
**********
Didn't answer the question did you? I asked you what you'd be saying now if you had been wrong and the weapons were there.
You were against the war because you had no proof? Just how wired into the world situation are you? As you said, you went on instinct. In short, you guessed.
Excuse? Surely don't think I need one. Yeah, I believed my government. Not embarassed by it, either. I think that's better odds bet than instinct. But they still have to be held accountable.
You won one. Realize it for what it was.
-
Originally posted by Steve
Yes it does. The Iraqi's knew full well we were coming. They didn't have to take up arms.
The 10,000 number isn't war dead, it's the estimated number of civilians that died. No one knows how many Iraqi combatants died because the CPA halted the counting.
-
Originally posted by Toad
You won one. Realize it for what it was.
Sure.... common sense. No biggie, and not much effort. Thanks.
Now this part slays me:
"I said at the outset, before the war, that I'd support the government position and give them the benefit of the doubt."
What world are you living in?
"Didn't answer the question did you? I asked you what you'd be saying now if you had been wrong and the weapons were there."
I'd say the same thing as I say now. It would be along the lines of: "Gee! What they said is true! A totally jumbled presentation of specious data that I can't even piece together, but yet it turns out there was something to it afterall. Go figure!"
But alas, in this case, use "nothing to it afterall".
So yeah dude, I guessed.
So did you. So did everyone.
It was never the point. I coulda been right, coulda been wrong. But I said this EXPLICITELY so many months ago (dig up the thread for the exact wording if you want): To send men to die over an unknown, a guess, borders on the criminal.
"You were against the war because you had no proof?"
YES!
Dammit how many times do you need to hear it?
Wars should be for a reason. Proof must be the foundation of that reason. Without proof, there is no foundation. Then all you get is a trainwreck.
"Yeah, I believed my government. Not embarassed by it, either. I think that's better odds bet than instinct. "
Really now... I don't hold such low expectations of you as you do of yourself.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
The 10,000 number isn't war dead, it's the estimated number of civilians that died. No one knows how many Iraqi combatants died because the CPA halted the counting.
As of June 13, 2004
Iraqbodycount.net max count 11,317
Antiwar.com count of Coalition Troops: American; 833, Rest of Coalition; 116, total; 949
Antiwar.com Iraqi Military Deaths, Maximum Est. 6,370
Total Human Cost of 15 months of Military option: 18,636
Human cost of policy in effect prior to military option:
According to UNICEF, a United Nations agency, the sanctions have contributed to the deaths of 500,000. But the former Iraqi government puts the death toll at a much higher 1.3 million.
"Even the most conservative, independent estimates hold economic sanctions responsible for a public health catastrophe of epic proportions. The World Health Organization believes at least 5,000 children under the age of 5 die each month from lack of access to food, medicine and clean water. Malnutrition, disease, poverty and premature death now ravage a once relatively prosperous society whose public health system was the envy of the Middle East. I went to Iraq in September 1997 to oversee the U.N.'s "oil for food" program. I quickly realized that this humanitarian program was a Band-Aid for a U.N. sanctions regime that was quite literally killing people. Feeling the moral credibility of the U.N. was being undermined, and not wishing to be complicit in what I felt was a criminal violation of human rights, I resigned after 13 months." Denis Halliday, former humanitarian aid coordinator for Iraq (Seattle Post-Intelligencer, February 12, 1999)
between 1991 and 1999 500,000 to 1.3 million. = 55,000 to 144,000 annually
Take what you want from that, it is just some data I was able to gather.
-
How many football fields is 1.3 million bodies?
-
Football or Soccer?
-
er I dunno soccer... Just the 100 yard variety.
-
They fit 100,000 in to watch the Michigan Wolverines.
-
Damn!
Okay... Thirteen stadiums of one hundred thousand wiped of the face of the earth to save them from ruthless tyranny.
I bet if ya laid them end to end they would circumnavigate the earth 2.4 times and would be visable from space.
-
So I take it you were against the sanction policy....?
'cause the 1.3 million (max) were killed in that failed policy.
-
It's all failed.
Thing now is to tip toe outta there wearing a big arse wink and a grin and hope they get the joke.
-
Okay people, now I see it, this is the most insightful thread about world problems I have seen in my entire life...
(http://www.mediocreminds.com/03q3/misc/pcs/triumph.jpg)
FOR ME TO POOP ON!!
Triumph
-
What world are you living in? Oh, wait. Nevermind.
You sling charges of "hypocrisy" at me and ignore that I'm doing exactly what I said I'd do.
You feel that a flat out blind guess is preferable to believing my government. That guessing wrong the other couldn't possibly have serious consequences for the US.
What I said was you "felt there was no proof". That's fine for your guess, but it isn't necessarily true. Wasn't then, isn't now.
-
"BTW, did YOU have absolute proof of your position prior to the war? What would you have done if the troops had found the WMD?
"
Is it so hard to see or so against common scense and decency that the onus of proof should be on the aggressor?
You, like me probably watched Powells testimony at the UN live.
What did you think? Did you see any "evidence" of WMD? Did you think that the fact that a pick up truck was at a bunker one week then gone the next was evidence enough for war?
No reasonable person would have accepted the reasons for the invasion. That you have come arround to rejecting them is great. You might grow more by figureing out how you were deluded into accepting the invasion when the evidence against it was being presented to you loud and clear pre war.
As to Iraq. What I hear from you is "Our mistake, your fault. "
-
This thread has turned into a real monster.
Where's Van Helsing when you need him?
-
I thought Powell made the case.
There's ample evidence (even here on this BBS) that different opinions on Iraq's WMD were held by intelligent people. Your position may have been clear to you, but I'm sure you realize differing opinions were just as clear to others.
Also, you, like most of us "knew what you read in the papers". You're smart enough to know that not all the information makes the papers and even less in it's correct form. It boils down to whether you trust your goverment or not. I trusted ours and it wasn't the only one saying they had WMD.
evidence against it was being presented to you loud and clear pre war
Obviously, I disagree. That may have seemed l/c to you, but not to me.
"Our mistake, your fault"
What? What is this? Research what I said nearly two years ago. I said I'd support it but also said after a reasonable time I'd require proof.
The proof has not yet materialized and my personal "reasonable time" has expired. That's all there is to it.
-
Time for volume 2 of this book.