Just a Reminder...

[mora]

Why can't you admit that you were duped with the WMD, which infact was by far the most important reason you went there? Anyway, why on earth would you even want to "liberate" people in the other side of the globe who have no meaning whatsoever to you?

Do I care or hold a grudge against the US? Hell no, I don't care what your reasons were! As long as you are dropping them it's all good in my book. I don't need muslim or any other religious bigots. Yes it's sad that there's plenty of innocent dropping from both sides, but I guess there's allways casualties in wars.

If I were a whoopee hippy I'd prolly be furious...

[oboe]

Originally posted by Shuckins
...about who and what we deposed in Iraq.

The bodies of 1500 Kurdish women and children have been discovered in a mass grave south of Baghdad.  They had been lined up in front of a pit and all had been shot.

Care to guess who is responsible?  That's right...that famous "victim" of unprovoked American aggression.

How many people died in the 9/11 attacks?   And Bush says he doesn't know or care where OBL is?   Saddam was more important because he killed 1500 Kurds, huh?   Right.   How many people have died in Iraq due to attacks by insurgents, a movement that our invasion gave unity and strength of purpose to?

I ain't saying its a travesty to have 150,000 troops on the ground of an oil rich nation in a politically unstable region which has turned against us, but I am ready to discard the lies and address the real reasons we're there.

Cripes North Korea is making nukes and firing missiles towards Japan now, and I think they claim they have one that can reach the continental US.   There's your WMD nation, and they seem proud of it.

[Sandman]

That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

Which is exactly what the people of Iraq should have done.

[Toad]

Originally posted by oboe
  And Bush says he doesn't know or care where OBL is?  

[/b]

If you like I can give you an e-mail to a friend just back from Afghanistan. He was in a medical unit and routinely treated US Special Forces of all the services as well as US "contract" employees. I think he can assure you that while Bush may have made that remark, Bush is also making sure the pursuit of OBL has not stopped.

In short, all this "we aren't looking for OBL" is just so much........ bovine waste matter.

How many people have died in Iraq due to attacks by insurgents, a movement that our invasion gave unity and strength of purpose to?

[/b]

1. Fewer people have died in insurgent attacks than SH killed for political reasons; fewer by a huge margin.

2. Our invasion gave them unity? There was no "insurgent" movement under SH. Do you know why? Think on it. I suspect if we rounded up people wholesale, shot them in the head and buried them in mass graves we could cut down on the insurgency too. Of course, it might take killing 100K or so but that's been done by the previous administration in Iraq. Would you be happier then?

Cripes North Korea is making nukes and firing missiles towards Japan now, and I think they claim they have one that can reach the continental US.   There's your WMD nation, and they seem proud of it.

What do you think? Would it have been easier to disarm NK (forcefully if necessary) before or after they got a few nuke warheads finished?

I'm guessing that once they get nukes, things get a bit more complicated and the risks soar astronomically.

But since NK obviously wasn't going to quit making their nukes without force, what exactly do you think should have been done?

[Toad]

Originally posted by Sandman
Which is exactly what the people of Iraq should have done.

And now, the remainder of that paragraph:

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. --

I do think the people of Iraq should have done it.

You'll recall there was an attempt after GW1 which the rest of the world ignored and did not support.

[Shuckins]

About 3000 people died at the WTC.  The number who died under Saddam's rule is more than an order of magnitude greater.

By the tone of some of these posts, a number of you find him less objectionable than the American President who went after him.

As has been stated numerous times on these bbs by myself and others, the president makes his foreign policy decisions based on intelligence reports gathered by the CIA and foreign intelligence agencies.  Since these groups are run by human beings, occasionally they make mistakes.  Name a single presidential administration within the last century that hasn't made mistakes in foreign policy based on faulty intelligence.

Personally, I don't believe a mistake was made in this instance.  According to a former deputy secretary of the NSC, satellite photographs confirmed that vast convoys of transport trucks and other vehicles crossed the Iraqi border into Syria just prior to and during the U.S. invasion.

Makes you wonder what they were carrying...doesn't it.  No...I don't suppose some of you would even admit that possibility.

None of which addresses the main topic of this post, Saddam's bloody massacres of his own people.  If might be a little easier for you left-wing types to work up a little sympathy for their suffering if they were registered voters in a blue state.  

Otherwise, your professed empathy for the oppressed of the world becomes a mere elitist affectation...worn when one wants to impress the feeble minded and the gullible.

[Drunky]

I have a question for all these people that keep saying the American public (and the world also I guess) was 'duped'.

You are using the word duped as if President Bush deliberately and premeditatedly lied to everyone.

Do you really believe that he lied?  That President Bush absolutely knew that there not any WMDs and he chose to lie about their existence so he could pursue the war for another reason?

[mora]

Originally posted by Drunky
I have a question for all these people that keep saying the American public (and the world also I guess) was 'duped'.

You are using the word duped as if President Bush deliberately and premeditatedly lied to everyone.

Do you really believe that he lied?  That President Bush absolutely knew that there not any WMDs and he chose to lie about their existence so he could pursue the war for another reason?

Yes, I really do believe so. Sure he didn't have any certainty about them but he never mentioned that, didn't he not? If someone provided false data to him it's still his responsibility as the head of the state. There are plenty of people around the globe who do support your war in Iraq(I'm neutral or slightly supportive), but I highly doubt that too many people(outside the US it seems) ever took the WMD argument seriously.

[Steve]

Yes, I really do believe so

Then so did Russia, FRance, the UN, and just about everyone else because they all said Hussein had WMD. What an amazing conspiracy.

[Rino]

What I don't get is why the Euros feel the US needs to answer
to them for our foreign policy.  they constantly cry about our
"interference" in their affairs yet seemingly have no hesitation
whatsoever interfering with ours.  Double standards anyone?

[Seeker]

Originally posted by Shuckins
About 3000 people died at the WTC.  The number who died under Saddam's rule is more than an order of magnitude greater.

By the tone of some of these posts, a number of you find him less objectionable than the American President who went after him.

.

Every one I've ever spoken to on the subject was totaly horrified about 9/11.

Many; many people I've spoken to on the subject were immensly impressed with American self control post 9/11 with respect to Afghanistan (you'd be surprised how many "Amerihaters" over here don't understand why you didn't nuke the place); and I've never heard any one critisize America's descision to go into Afghanistan.

The whole world was with you. Even Canada!

Then Bush took that ground swell of sympathy and support and pissed it up against the wall.

Indeed; he may well have cost his closest ally (Blair) his job.

Few people with brains would postulate that the world is not a better; safer place without Saddam. And indeed; with out America leading the way; he may well have still been in power at this point in time.

But the end DOES NOT justify the means. That is the bedrock that our understanding of the post WWII world is founded on. And it's the principle that Bush has ignored.

We still don't understand Bush's (and Blair's) imperitive in starting the Iraq conflict in the way he did. And; in not understanding; we remain suspicious.

In short; it ain't what he's done; it's the way he's done it.

No one over here (that I talk to; least ways) thinks that what America has done in Iraq is "wrong"; however no one understands why it was done in the way it was done.

Do any of you? (no; I don't mean form your own rationalisations; I mean take the reasons the administration presented to you; and make sense of them).

Was Saddam; could Saddam be a "threat to the world" (not his own people; as Toad pointed out they have a role to play) with USAF F16's and RAF Tornado's buzzing his arse every time he scratched it?

[mora]

Originally posted by Rino
What I don't get is why the Euros feel the US needs to answer
to them for our foreign policy.  they constantly cry about our
"interference" in their affairs yet seemingly have no hesitation
whatsoever interfering with ours.  Double standards anyone?

Only when it concerns myself. The Iraq affair doesn't really concern me so I'm not trying to interfere with your foreign policy... I simply find it funny that some people who were duped are trying bring up excuses for it and/or divert attention to elsewhere.

[-tronski-]

Originally posted by Toad
Just sayin'

Persons found guilty of temple prostitution, engaged women who are seduced by a man other than her future husband, women who practice black magic, some women who are raped in urban areas, children who cursed their parents, some non-virgin brides, Jews who collect firewood on Saturday to keep their families from freezing, persons proselytizing in favor of another religion, persons worshiping a deity other than Yahweh, strangers who entered the temple, etc; all were to be executed.

Interesting list of exceptions....

Originally posted by Steve
Then so did Russia, FRance, the UN, and just about everyone else because they all said Hussein had WMD. What an amazing conspiracy.

Yeah amazing how only govts. pursuing a war talked up their immediate threat, and deployment, and that only the immediate pursuit of war was able to secure such an immediate threat to the region...

...and amazing how these same govts. are now constantly baiting and switching the said cause(s) of the war now that said immediacy has turned into a farce...

 Tronsky

[oboe]

As of Monday, 25 Apr, there were over 24,000 media-documented Iraqi civilian deaths resulting from the U.S.-lead invasion of Iraq.   Other estimates range as high as 100,000 civilians killed.

And nope, not implying at all I liked Saddam Hussein better than GWB.    Hussein was a tyrant, an evil dictator, and the US apparently gave him assistance that helped him stay in power.
Maybe we forget that when we blame the Iraqis for tolerating his rule and not rising up against him.

Toad, you are free to post the email, though I believe you when you say you have a friend who was in the service in Afghanistan who believes we are still looking for OBL.   I'd be interested to know why he thinks we haven't found him yet.   Does he feel our forces in Afghanistan have the number of personnel, equipment, and support required to accomplish the mission?    If so, why does OBL remain at large?     Any idea why GWB uttered the mother of all flipflops and claimed he didn't know or care where OBL was in March 2002 after swearing to find him in September 2001?   Any wild guesses?

If the reason for invading Iraq was to protect this nation from a terrorist country that supposedly possessed WMDs, then why are we sitting on our hands regarding North Korea?    No suspicion is necessary - they have them, they have missiles, and they are working on mating the two.   Do you think 'because it wouldn't be easy' is a valid excuse for not taking pre-emptive action to defend our country?

Put another way, which nation poses a greater threat, right now, to the US?   Iraq or North Korea?   GWB has said he will not rest in defending this country, so let's get the troops on the boats and get moving.

If on the other hand, the reason we invaded Iraq was to secure vital oil supplies for our economy, then lets come clean and admit it.   The longer OBL remains free, the longer we put off dealing with North Korea (and now Iran for that matter), the more I become convinced that this is the real truth behind the invasion.
We wouldn't be the first nation in the world who initiated a war of aggression to secure oil supplies.

[Toad]

Originally posted by oboe
As of Monday, 25 Apr, there were over 24,000 media-documented Iraqi civilian deaths resulting from the U.S.-lead invasion of Iraq.   Other estimates range as high as 100,000 civilians killed.

[/b]

1. Your link doesn't work.

2. "Media documented" realy doesn't say much. Does this media show that the 24,000 were a DIRECT result of US action? Or does it include Sunnis blowing up Shiite funeral processions?

I'm sure you see the difference.

And nope, not implying at all I liked Saddam Hussein better than GWB.    Hussein was a tyrant, an evil dictator, and the US apparently gave him assistance that helped him stay in power.
Maybe we forget that when we blame the Iraqis for tolerating his rule and not rising up against him.

[/b]

Jeez, what an old chesnut. You are aware we supported Stalin too? Friends sometimes later become enemies. Enemies sometimes later become friends. There are times when "the enemy of my enemy is my friend."

In short, you can look at the political relationships of just about any country on earth and find reversals in support. Things change, relationships change as a result.

Toad, you are free to post the email, though I believe you when you say you have a friend who was in the service in Afghanistan who believes we are still looking for OBL.

[/b]

I didn't say I'd post it. I can ask HIM to contact YOU. I'm sure he doesn't want his addy posted all over the net.

He was the CAT/X-ray tech that did the work on our SF guys that got shot up chasing A-Q in Afghanistan.

I'm sure he can assure you we are still looking for OBL and it is still a "hot" fight. He'd probably E-mail you some pics of legs blown off if you like, if that's what it's going to take to convince you.

  I'd be interested to know why he thinks we haven't found him yet.

[/b]

Three reasons. Terrain, particularly on the Pakistan border, Support of the locals in that area, the possibility that OBL is in a country where we can't search, like Iran.

Sorry, I'm not a Bush mindreader. Why don't you call the White House Press Secretary with those questions.
   

then why are we sitting on our hands regarding North Korea?  

[/b]

I suspect it's because people like you would absolutely crap if we gave NK an ultimatum and went to war if they refused to surrender the nukes. Just a guess.

But really...........  you think we should go after NK militarily? Right now? Do you?
 
Do you think risking nuclear war is the right course in trying to disarm NK?

Put another way, which nation poses a greater threat, right now, to the US?   Iraq or North Korea?

[/b]

Put it this way.... is there a greater chance of disarming Iran BEFORE they get nukes than there is AFTER they have nukes?

We could disarm NK. Are you willing to accept all out war on the Korean peninsula and the possible discharge of nukes over Seoul and Tokyo? I'm guessing the SK's and Japanese are not quite ready yet.
 

The longer OBL remains free, the longer we put off dealing with North Korea

[/b]

We are dealing with NK, just not to your particular satisfaction. I'm pretty happy with the current administration's stance. They're not getting sucked in like Clinton did with the Carter deal and they're involving other Asian countries so that "face" will be a player.

(and now Iran for that matter),

[/b]

Why do you assume we are not dealing with Iran? Do you think you know everything because the news would have told you?

We wouldn't be the first nation in the world who initiated a war of aggression to secure oil supplies.

No blood for oil, Oboe?  Jeez.......... End of discussion, I guess.