So is the Truth Finally Out on WMDs? - Page 3 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 08-04-2003, 06:54 PM   #31
War Child
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 633
Local Time: 07:01 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Scarletwine
I think Powell's decision announced today about not seeking a second term as Sec. of State speaks volumes about the WMD's in Iraq.
While he says it's to keep a promise to his wife, I think he can't stomach anymore undermining by Rumsfeld & Cheney crap.
What information do you base this on?
__________________

__________________
wolfwill23 is offline  
Old 08-05-2003, 12:07 PM   #32
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
oliveu2cm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Live from Boston
Posts: 8,334
Local Time: 03:01 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by wolfwill23
'

It's your opinion and you know what they say about opinions...

It's more than my opinion. It's common deduction. If Bush really cared that "Saddam used WMD on his own people at one time" and "Not one Iraqi will be killed by Quassi and not more woman raped by Uday ever again" then he wouldn't be blatantly ignoring other areas in the world where people are being terrorized and killed by its own people.

Point and case: Liberia, right now. Point and case: Afghanastan. It's overrun by warlords and the Afghan people are constantly terrorized. Why aren't we pulling a full-out war on their behalf, if this is a reason we did for Iraq like you stated?? If you think it's only MY opinoin, check out rawa.org, an organization to help the Afghanistan women. Here is a photo gallery of life for these women (*Warning: disturbing pictures*) RAWA Photo Gallery

So it is bullshit, Bush doesn't care about the Iraqi people anymore than he does the Afghans or the Liberians, or else he'd be helping them. Liberia has even pleaded for help.

There are women all over the world who are raped and tormented because they are women. Why isn't there a war out agains their terrorists? How many women feel safer now that there's no order in Iraq? Just because his sons are killed, it does NOT mean the women are safe. To even try and imply that Iraqi women will not be afraid anymore is a joke, and displays a severe naivity towards the situation these women deal with every single day.

Here is an article written by an Iraqi women. She sounds soo happy Bush has saved her. "PLEASE TELL MR. BUSH Ö."

How about the USA where there is a woman raped every 3 minutes?
Quote:
Violence against women and girls in Indian Country is at epidemic proportions. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the rate of rape and sexual assault of Native American women is 3.5 times higher than for any other race in the United States. The rate continues to rise while Indian women and girls remain invisible as an at risk population.
source
If Bush cares about women and stopping terrorizing, what about the people of his own country??

I'm not the only one with this "opinion", here is one example.

Quote:
If, for example, you are not advocating an immediate invasion of other brutal regimes around the world, solely for the purpose of "liberating" the oppressed inhabitants of those countries, your claim is proven false. It means that "human rights abuses" are NOT enough for you to advocate invading a country and deposing its brutal regime. And, since you can't seriously argue any longer that Saddam had WMD's, and was a threat to his neighbors, or had ties to Al Qaeda...you can't claim that all these things in combination with his human rights record were your motivations.IV. Everything else has been eliminated, so what are your TRUE reasons for supporting the war NOW?
Source
__________________

__________________
oliveu2cm is offline  
Old 08-05-2003, 12:46 PM   #33
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
sulawesigirl4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Virginia
Posts: 7,416
Local Time: 02:01 AM
I would say that olive has effectively backed up her opinion.
__________________
"I can't change the world, but I can change the world in me." - Bono

sulawesigirl4 is offline  
Old 08-05-2003, 02:00 PM   #34
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 02:01 AM
And now you know why the case for war was NOT based on the internal affairs of another country. We SHOULD not go into every country because they are being terrorized by a brutal dictator. I an others did not sign up to join the military to risk our lives to solve the problems of the world.

This is why the WMD was the main reason for invading Iraq.

[Q]Sec. 502. - Enlistment oath: who may administer

Each person enlisting in an armed force shall take the following oath: ''I, _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the

Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.''
[/Q]

Nowhere does the oath imply that soldiers are to be going around the world freeing oppressed people and nation building.

Your points are serious Olive, and I understand the case you are making that Bush does not care. However he campained on the premise that we were too involved in the problems of other nations. Afghanistan was not about freeing anyone, it was about Al-Qaeda. The Taliban got in the way. Still the mission fits the oath above.

Liberia is a trajedy. I am 100% opposed to unilateral involvement there by our military. If it is going to happen under UN Control and we are part of a support operation, so be it. But there is not strategic reason to be risking American soldiers lives. If it sounds harsh, I am sorry, but I have felt the same about other operations that prior administrations have undertaken.

Iraq was sold to us as a military threat. Afghanistan was sold to us as a threat. Disagree all you want with that. It was and is the MAIN reason we went to war.

Now does that mean that Bush does not care about women being raped? Do you know him? Does he have daughters? DO you really believe that he does not care?

You may find his Foreign Policy inconsistent and selfish. Many have deduced that he is consistent and if selfish means looking out for American lives, so be it.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 08-05-2003, 02:08 PM   #35
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
sulawesigirl4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Virginia
Posts: 7,416
Local Time: 02:01 AM
If that's the case, then why, whenever the fact that the WMDs have not been found and the lies given in the runup to the war are brought up, the response is that we "rid the world of an evil dictator and made the lives of the Iraqi people better"? Consistency. That seems to be seriously lacking in the current administration's rhetoric.
__________________
"I can't change the world, but I can change the world in me." - Bono

sulawesigirl4 is offline  
Old 08-05-2003, 02:30 PM   #36
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
kobayashi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: the ether
Posts: 5,142
Local Time: 03:01 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox
Disagree all you want
bush and friends are selling a product. nothing more.
they will tell you their product suits your needs, whatever those needs may be: personal safety, belief in morals and ethics, humanitarian concerns, etc.

in doing so some inconsistencies will appear.
they also have several other products to help you not worry about these inconsistencies.
__________________
im the candyman. and the candyman is back.
kobayashi is offline  
Old 08-05-2003, 03:00 PM   #37
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
oliveu2cm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Live from Boston
Posts: 8,334
Local Time: 03:01 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by sulawesigirl4
If that's the case, then why, whenever the fact that the WMDs have not been found and the lies given in the runup to the war are brought up, the response is that we "rid the world of an evil dictator and made the lives of the Iraqi people better"? Consistency. That seems to be seriously lacking in the current administration's rhetoric.
This is exactly what I am arguing.

When wolfwill23 cited a reason for waging war on Iraq as being to free the Iraqi people and allow the women to live without fear, I simply pointed out that if this were a reason, then Bush is sorely and thus inconsistently abandoning other countries.

Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox

Liberia is a trajedy. I am 100% opposed to unilateral involvement there by our military. If it is going to happen under UN Control and we are part of a support operation, so be it. But there is not strategic reason to be risking American soldiers lives. If it sounds harsh, I am sorry, but I have felt the same about other operations that prior administrations have undertaken.
Hmm, well, I find this confusing seeing as we didn't wait for UN support when attacking Iraq. But I'm sure that's been excused & discussed ad naseum. (Just another inconsistency that we attack Iraq w/o the UN but won't attack anywhere else w/o them.)


Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox

Now does that mean that Bush does not care about women being raped? Do you know him? Does he have daughters? DO you really believe that he does not care?
If he cares he does nothing to change the situation.


Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox
Nowhere does the oath imply that soldiers are to be going around the world freeing oppressed people and nation building.
<snip>

You may find his Foreign Policy inconsistent and selfish. Many have deduced that he is consistent and if selfish means looking out for American lives, so be it.
From the very title of the campaign, "Operation Iraqi Freedom" we have inconsistency! You yourself just stated we didn't go there to free oppressed people (yet the title and wolfwill23 implies otherwise).

His foreign policy is inconsistent in more serious ways. We invaded a country (Iraq) with no links to Al Qaeda and no WMD of any kind, yetwe leave others alone. Others like Iran, who are actively stepping up their nuclear program. Like North Korea, who have been bragging about their WMD for months now. Or Saudi Arabia, there is strong evidence that suggests they helped fund the 9/11 attack on our country (our country that he is supposed to be looking out for). Why attack Iraq without attacking these other countries as well?

By the way, how is he looking out for American lives as the US soldiers based in Iraq are miserable and dying every day? A friend of mine has a coworker whose boyfriend is over there, and wishing he could break his own bones to get sent home because it is absolutely miserable and depressing there.

*edited for spelling
__________________
oliveu2cm is offline  
Old 08-05-2003, 04:15 PM   #38
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 02:01 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by oliveu2cm


This is exactly what I am arguing.

When wolfwill23 cited a reason for waging war on Iraq as being to free the Iraqi people and allow the women to live without fear, I simply pointed out that if this were a reason, then Bush is sorely and thus inconsistently abandoning other countries.
Last I knew Wolf is not the spokesperson for the US Governement. Wolf did specifically mention that Uday and his brother would not longer be terrorising women. The President has spoken about the evils of Saddam and his son. He did not make it the MAIN reason for invading. It was however on the table as a reason.


Quote:
Originally posted by oliveu2cm

Hmm, well, I find this confusing seeing as we didn't wait for UN support when attacking Iraq. But I'm sure that's been excused & discussed ad naseum. (Just another inconsistency that we attack Iraq w/o the UN but won't attack anywhere else w/o them.)
I am sorry Olive, but the two situations are extremely different. The President believed that we were in danger. This is the Main part of the case against Iraq. While I wish the US had gotten UN support for the operation, especially now, because the after part would be much different in my opinion. However, the President of the United States has an obligation to act to Defend this country with or without the UN.

It is our duty as citizens to vote when we feel that the President has failed to meet this obligation, or has acted or misled the American people to war. I can assure you that if WMD is not found and it seems we were not in immediate danger I will not be voting for this man, nor will I vote for any congressperson or senator who gave him the power to invade Iraq. They are as responsible as he is, Democrats and Republicans alike!


Liberia has not to my knowledge invaded another country. They have no WMD that I am aware of. We do not have to keep troops in the region to protect its neighbors. SO yes, I do believe in this situation, the UN is important. I see no reason for UNILATERAL involvement.


Quote:
Originally posted by oliveu2cm

If he cares he does nothing to change the situation.
I am not going to comment on this. I truthfully do not think it is productive. I do not believe that this president does care about this issue.

Quote:
Originally posted by oliveu2cm

From the very title of the campaign, "Operation Iraqi Freedom" we have inconsistency! You yourself just stated we didn't go there to free oppressed people (yet the title and wolfwill23 implies otherwise).
Yes, the military has snappy names for all of their campains. AS I have stated consistently on this board, Iraqi Freedom was part of it. Not the main part.


Quote:
Originally posted by oliveu2cm

His foreign policy is inconsistent in more serious ways. We invaded a country (Iraq) with no links to Al Qaeda and no WMD of any kind, yetwe leave others alone. Others like Iran, who are actively stepping up their nuclear program. Like North Korea, who have been bragging about their WMD for months now.
Please name for me all of the other countries that Iran and North Korea have invaded in the past twenty years. Please name for me the number of times either of these two nations have used WMD on people?

Since we cannot bring up President Clinton without being told that this is not about him I will not go into the North Korea situation any further.

Do you really think we have the troop stregnth and the manpower to go after Iran or North Korea right now? We are too thin to do much else right now.


Quote:
Originally posted by oliveu2cm
Or Saudi Arabia, there is strong evidence that suggests they helped fund the 9/11 attack on our country (our country that he is supposed to be looking out for). Why attack Iraq without attacking these other countries as well?
Last I checked we are taking steps to move our troops out of Saudi Arabia. Are you really surprised about the Saudi Arabian connection? 17 out of the 19 were from Saudi Arabia. Osama was from Saudi Arabia. There is a difference between the Taliban harboring and protecting terrorists and a governement that has been cracking down on them. The Saudi Government is an enemy of Al-Qaeda. Osama hates them and over the past few months the headlines of crackdowns in Saudi Arabia demonstrate that they are actively working to stop terrorism. Quite different from Afghanistan after 9/11.


Quote:
Originally posted by oliveu2cm

By the way, how is he looking out for American lives as the US soldiers based in Iraq are miserable and dying every day? A friend of mine has a coworker whose boyfriend is over there, and wishing he could break his own bones to get sent home because it is absolutely miserable and depressing there.

*edited for spelling
If the UN were involved from the start, and we had a broader coalition, this phase in Iraq would be going better. As to your question above. These are volunteer soldiers. I volunteered, they volunteered. The President decided that Iraq was a threat. Congress authorized the use of force after looking at the evidence. Democrats and Republicans agreed with their vote last fall that there was a threat to the United States. They are looking out for our lives.

As to the soldiers dying over there....One thing I would love to see is some accountability for the lack of planning. That to me is something to get mad about.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 08-05-2003, 09:19 PM   #39
New Yorker
 
Scarletwine's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Outside it's Amerika
Posts: 2,746
Local Time: 02:01 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by wolfwill23


What information do you base this on?
I base that theory on the myrad of articles I've read concerning post war Iraq and the Pentagon vs the State department. Traditionally once a end of war has been declared as Bush did in his little photo-op, the State department has a large hand in the "nation Building" if you will. Powell and his department have been frozen out of this traditional role. Ican dig up articles from Time ect. if you'd like.
__________________
Scarletwine is offline  
Old 08-06-2003, 01:30 PM   #40
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
kobayashi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: the ether
Posts: 5,142
Local Time: 03:01 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox
These are volunteer soldiers. I volunteered, they volunteered. The President decided that Iraq was a threat. Congress authorized the use of force after looking at the evidence. Democrats and Republicans agreed with their vote last fall that there was a threat to the United States. They are looking out for our lives.
your confidence in their motives isnt the least bit shaken?
__________________
im the candyman. and the candyman is back.
kobayashi is offline  
Old 08-06-2003, 02:29 PM   #41
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 02:01 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by kobayashi
your confidence in their motives isnt the least bit shaken?
WE have checks and balances built in. The President could not have acted without their votes. They, the House and Senate, voted overwealmingly to give the President the authority to act with or without the UN. This decision was not just made by the President and his cronies. It was made by Congress, and was supported by both sides of the aisle.

That said, if we are indeed holding a bag of and no WMD are found and it is proven that we were not in immediate danger, they should ALL be held accountable for putting American lives at risk for something that could have been handled diplomatically.


Peace
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 08-07-2003, 09:02 AM   #42
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
oliveu2cm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Live from Boston
Posts: 8,334
Local Time: 03:01 AM
Quote:
Originally posted byDreadsox
Last I knew Wolf is not the spokesperson for the US Governement. Wolf did specifically mention that Uday and his brother would not longer be terrorising women. The President has spoken about the evils of Saddam and his son. He did not make it the MAIN reason for invading. It was however on the table as a reason.
Right. But I was responding to what Wolf said, and explaining how it didnít line up with other actions by the Bush admin.

Quote:
Originally posted byDreadsox
I am sorry Olive, but the two situations are extremely different. The President believed that we were in danger. This is the Main part of the case against Iraq. While I wish the US had gotten UN support for the operation, especially now, because the after part would be much different in my opinion. However, the President of the United States has an obligation to act to Defend this country with or without the UN.
Weíre just going to have to agree to disagree on this Dread.

Quote:
Originally posted byDreadsox
It is our duty as citizens to vote when we feel that the President has failed to meet this obligation, or has acted or misled the American people to war. I can assure you that if WMD is not found and it seems we were not in immediate danger I will not be voting for this man, nor will I vote for any congressperson or senator who gave him the power to invade Iraq. They are as responsible as he is, Democrats and Republicans alike!
this I can agree with!


Quote:
Originally posted byDreadsox[b]
Please name for me all of the other countries that Iran and North Korea have invaded in the past twenty years. Please name for me the number of times either of these two nations have used WMD on people?

Since we cannot bring up President Clinton without being told that this is not about him I will not go into the North Korea situation any further. [/b
Well, we invaded Iraq because we were told they were a threat to the US, not because they had committed a first offense against us (or anyone else- like you stated ďNowhere does the oath imply that soldiers are to be going around the world freeing oppressed people and nation building.Ē). This contradicts with saying we have to give other countries a first offense before we take them seriously. This is what I mean about consistency. And just because Iran hasnít invaded anyone yet doesnít mean their nuke program is pointless.

Quote:
Originally posted byDreadsox
Do you really think we have the troop stregnth and the manpower to go after Iran or North Korea right now? We are too thin to do much else right now.
Iím not saying we should. But I think if we make arguments to go against Iraq, itís fair to ask why weíre not going against Iran & N.Korea who both have WMD and NK has even threatened us with them.

Quote:
Originally posted byDreadsoxLast I checked we are taking steps to move our troops out of Saudi Arabia. Are you really surprised about the Saudi Arabian connection? 17 out of the 19 were from Saudi Arabia. Osama was from Saudi Arabia. There is a difference between the Taliban harboring and protecting terrorists and a governement that has been cracking down on them. The Saudi Government is an enemy of Al-Qaeda. Osama hates them and over the past few months the headlines of crackdowns in Saudi Arabia demonstrate that they are actively working to stop terrorism. Quite different from Afghanistan after 9/11.
Nope, Iím not surprised at the Saudi Arabian connection. I guess I'm more focused on the fact that there's a link between Saudi Arabia and Al Qaeda, but none with Iraq. Yet we went for Iraq , while implying they were connected with when that wasnít true. And if the SA government is so focused on getting rid of AQ, why didn't we work with them in the first place, instead of all of the sudden jumping on Iraq? After all, AQ are the ones who attacked the U.S. in the first place, not Iraq!

Quote:
Originally posted byDreadsoxIf the UN were involved from the start, and we had a broader coalition, this phase in Iraq would be going better. As to your question above. These are volunteer soldiers. I volunteered, they volunteered. The President decided that Iraq was a threat. Congress authorized the use of force after looking at the evidence. Democrats and Republicans agreed with their vote last fall that there was a threat to the United States. They are looking out for our lives.
I guess I would assume that in volunteering, their own safety and lives would be looked out for as much as possible, and I personally feel that there are soldiers there dying uselessly now. Also- I think itís clear we disagree that Iraq was a threat to our lives.

Olive.
__________________
oliveu2cm is offline  
Old 08-07-2003, 09:07 AM   #43
War Child
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 633
Local Time: 07:01 AM
So Olive, you seem to have a lot of interesting answers. What should the US have done with Iraq?
__________________
wolfwill23 is offline  
Old 08-07-2003, 11:02 AM   #44
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 02:01 AM
1st thank you for the nice response to my points on the issue. THere are some that we are probably a little closer on than others. Especially the accountablitiy of the Democrats and Republicans in the House and Senate.


Quote:
Originally posted by oliveu2cm
Well, we invaded Iraq because we were told they were a threat to the US, not because they had committed a first offense against us (or anyone else- like you stated ďNowhere does the oath imply that soldiers are to be going around the world freeing oppressed people and nation building.Ē). This contradicts with saying we have to give other countries a first offense before we take them seriously.
Part of the case the was definitely about the threat. The reason that he was viewed as a threat was that he had used the WMD's before. He has acted irrrationally before. These weapons in his hands made him a threat. HIs attempted assasination of former President Bush made him a threat.

The last point the WHite House clearly cannot use because it makes it a personal vendetta. However, to me it is still valid.

Quote:
Originally posted by oliveu2cm
This contradicts with saying we have to give other countries a first offense before we take them seriously.
I agree with you here on some level. I do believe we violated international law by acting without the security council. Others here clearly do NOT and I understand their points. I believe we do not have to have permission to defend ourselves, so if we have to strike first so be it.

That said when we strike first WE as citizens must hold all of the politicians to the highest level of accountability. If the White House sold the Congress a load of crap, why aren't they going after the President in a big way? Why aren't they calling for an investigation? Maybe we need more time. I still think with the vote the way it was, meaning lopsided that the congress was 100% convinced this was necessary.


Quote:
Originally posted by oliveu2cm
This is what I mean about consistency. And just because Iran hasnít invaded anyone yet doesnít mean their nuke program is pointless.
Olive, I never meaned to imply that their nuclear program pointless. How old were you when the Iranian Revolution occured? Do you remember it? I remember it. Iran is no friend of this country at all and the thought of them holding these weapons scares the out of me. Yet, they have not through their actions in the last twenty years invaded another country unprovoked or used WMD.


Quote:
Originally posted by oliveu2cm
[B]Nope, Iím not surprised at the Saudi Arabian connection. I guess I'm more focused on the fact that there's a link between Saudi Arabia and Al Qaeda, but none with Iraq. Yet we went for Iraq , while implying they were connected with when that wasnít true. And if the SA government is so focused on getting rid of AQ, why didn't we work with them in the first place, instead of all of the sudden jumping on Iraq? After all, AQ are the ones who attacked the U.S. in the first place, not Iraq!
I am pretty sure that we are and were working with the SA governement. The SA governement publicly puts on a different face than they do behind the scenes. They are and have been supportive of the United States. The people living there however, hate the US.

I do believe we began to and are continuing to deal with Al-Qaeda. WE began that part of things 1st. 2ndly Iraq's influence on our foreign policy, ie Keeping Trops in Saudi Arabia, was/is one of the main problems that Al-Qaeda has. They believe that it is a sin for us(infidel) to be on their holy land. Taking care of Iraq after 12 years of waiting for the UN to was a very important piece of this. If a stable government can be places in Iraq we can remove our soldiers from the holy land, and MAYBE the target from our backs. I would not call the move against Iraq all of a sudden. Twelve years of resolutions, attempts to work with the UN, and plenty of warnings since 9/11.

Quote:
Originally posted by oliveu2cm
I guess I would assume that in volunteering, their own safety and lives would be looked out for as much as possible, and I personally feel that there are soldiers there dying uselessly now. Also- I think itís clear we disagree that Iraq was a threat to our lives.

Olive.
And it is indeed this phase of the Operation that has pissed me off. If there are no WMD we were wrong. If we jumped to conclusions on faulty intelligence, we were wrong.

I am holding my breath, it has been almost three days since a soldier has been killed in Iraq. Maybe things are starting to pan out. I think there is an apparent lack of planning here. Maybe the offensive part of the war went too well too quick, but I strongly feel that this part has not been going well at all.

Good dialogue.

Peace
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 08-07-2003, 03:48 PM   #45
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
oliveu2cm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Live from Boston
Posts: 8,334
Local Time: 03:01 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by wolfwill23
So Olive, you seem to have a lot of interesting answers. What should the US have done with Iraq?
Well Iím certainly not attempting to be a smart ass about things. I understand the situation is complicated. It's hard for anyone to say what we should have done.

Yet I think waiting would have been a better course of action. We attacked without any reason to believe, after 12 years, that all of a sudden Saddam was a grave threat to us.

We should have allowed the inspectors to continue doing their job. If we could find WMD then, we would have had the UN support that was necessary. Delaying war would also result in a far lower cost, in $$ and lives, than war has been to the US. In the meantime, we could have gained intelligence, and most of all PLANNED for a possible war, and it's aftermath. Perhaps it would turn out Iraq is a threat to us, but we (all) deserve proof of that, and i think it's coming out now how we didn't really have any.

I do believe Sadam is a man who has terrorized, killed, tortured, raped, ravaged thousands of people. I believe he is evil. But we didn't attack him because he's evil and has terrorized his own country. We attacked him on the assumption he has WMD, and I don't think an assumption is good enough to go on, to use the lives of our service men and women, and our money- not when we ignore other countries who are threatening us with their nukes, and not when we ignore other countries with Al Qeada connections.

Olive
__________________

__________________
oliveu2cm is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:01 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com