wolfwill23
War Child
Scarletwine said:
What information do you base this on?
So is the Truth Finally Out on WMDs?
- Thread starter melon
- Start date
The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
What information do you base this on?
oliveu2cm
Rock n' Roll Doggie FOB
wolfwill23 said:
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 ?."
How about the USA where there is a woman raped every 3 minutes?
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.
Last edited:
sulawesigirl4
Rock n' Roll Doggie ALL ACCESS
I would say that olive has effectively backed up her opinion.
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.
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.
sulawesigirl4
Rock n' Roll Doggie ALL ACCESS
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.
Dreadsox said:
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.
oliveu2cm
Rock n' Roll Doggie FOB
sulawesigirl4 said:
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.
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.)
If he cares he does nothing to change the situation.
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
Last edited:
oliveu2cm said:
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.
oliveu2cm said:
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.
oliveu2cm said:
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.
oliveu2cm said:
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.
oliveu2cm said:
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.
oliveu2cm said:
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.
oliveu2cm said:
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.
Last edited:
Scarletwine
New Yorker
wolfwill23 said:
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.
kobayashi said:
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
oliveu2cm
Rock n' Roll Doggie FOB
Right. But I was responding to what Wolf said, and explaining how it didn?t line up with other actions by the Bush admin.
We?re just going to have to agree to disagree on this Dread.
this I can agree with!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 ?Nowhere does the oath imply that soldiers are to be going around the world freeing oppressed people and nation building.?). 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 hasn?t invaded anyone yet doesn?t mean their nuke program is pointless.
I?m not saying we should. But I think if we make arguments to go against Iraq, it?s fair to ask why we?re not going against Iran & N.Korea who both have WMD and NK has even threatened us with them.
Nope, I?m 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 wasn?t 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 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 it?s clear we disagree that Iraq was a threat to our lives.
Olive.
wolfwill23
War Child
So Olive, you seem to have a lot of interesting answers. What should the US have done with Iraq?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
oliveu2cm said:
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.
oliveu2cm said:
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.
oliveu2cm said:
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.oliveu2cm said:
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.
oliveu2cm said:
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
oliveu2cm
Rock n' Roll Doggie FOB
wolfwill23 said:
Well I?m 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
wolfwill23
War Child
oliveu2cm said:
How freckin' long???? Saddam was supposed to be complying with inspections since 1991! He was a master at playing hide and seek with the weapon inspectors. I seriously doubt that the UN inspectors would have ever found anything. You know why? Because Saddam was having scientists bury nuke parts under their rose bushes. C'mon!! I don't know about you, but if I was working for Saddam and he told me to bury something, I'd do it. And if an inspector asked me about it, I'd lie right to their face because I would not want wife raped and killed. So, to sum up, there would have never been a satisfactory ending to the UN inspection process. Bush did the right thing by taking action when he did.
oliveu2cm said:
I could not agree with you more. It's quite obvious that the White House didn't spend much time thinking about how to win the peace. Now we've got terrorists in there as well.
oliveu2cm said:
Bush had two choices, 1. Turn a blind eye ala Clinton and hope to God that none of those weapons wind up in NYC or 2. Remove a mass murdering nutjob and install a democratic, free government in the most dangerous, anti-US region on the map. Which choice would you prefer to be on the WRONG side of? I'll take number 2.
oliveu2cm said:
This was part of the reason.
oliveu2cm said:
This was the main reason.
oliveu2cm said:
I do. Again, with this stuff, after 9/11, you have to think worst case scenerio. Maybe Saddam wasn't a threat right now. But if the UN declared he was all clean and the US backed off with their troops (the only thing Saddam responds to, BTW) what do you think Saddam would have done just after the sanctions were lifted? Open a flower shop? No way. He'd start working on WMD again, probably nukes.
oliveu2cm said:
I agree with you. The Iran and N. Korea situation is a serious cluster f**k. I have a hard time seeing a peaceful way out of the N. Korean crisis (thanks Clinton-oops!
). Which is just another reason why the time was right to take out Saddam when we did. N. Korea was already too far along in their WMD programs. We didn't have enough on Iran (although we may soon if they keep up their nuke ambitions). But with Iraq, you had a murderous leader who used WMDs against his own people in the past, WMDs that were unaccounted for and sanctions already in place from the UN. Taking out Saddam when we did was the right thing to do. Go Bush!
oliveu2cm
Rock n' Roll Doggie FOB
Thanks Dread, this has been an interesting dialog for me as well. It?s nice to speak with someone who isn?t aggressive but willing to discuss. I definitely think we can relate on some of these issues (and mainly that we don?t want the US involved in things it shouldn?t be).
He has acted irrationally before- but not against the US. If we disagreed with his using WMD against his people, we probably should have acted then. It's hard to forget who gave him those weapons in the first place?
I agree with the part about it being a personal vendetta. It is reason to be wary, but not aggressive.
I agree with you also- and I understand the point of other people. If we were attacked, and the security council did not support us, I think we have the right to defend ourselves. But I don?t think this situation called for that response.
?. However, it is an enormous risk for a politician to stand up on their own and start accusing and asking these sort of questions, especially in a republican controlled (in both houses) congress. So it's sort of not surprising that, despite the growing amount of evidence of improper actions that not much has yet been done? especially when anyone (from politicians to musicians- i.e. Dixie Chicks- to celebrities) who dissents is painted as anti-American, and harassed. This needs to change and hopefully it does, but the fact remains that right now it?s very dangerous for anyone to come out as having a problem with what is going on. It seems the White House has created an environment that is particularly hostile to dissent about the war. This, I think, is a whole other thread ;-)
Dreadsox, I'm not sure if you meant that to sound as condescending as it did. But I have to say, I find it demeaning when someone asks me how old I was during a discussion like this. I?ve had a coworker do it (regarding this same issue, which he obtrusively brought up in my office without invitation or desire on my part to discuss). Does "witnessing" an event automatically equal knowledge about it? This sentiment makes it seem like anyone (presumed) "young" shouldn't bother with grown-up stuff.
That said, I know you didn?t say Iran?s nuclear weapon program was pointless. But we?re treating Iraq as if they have already let loose some WMD on us, and ignoring Iran when we know what Iran is capable of. I understand what you are saying that Iran hasn?t used them at ALL- but Iraq never did use them on us (while AQ, on the other hand, DID attack us).
Definitely, Al-Qaeda was angry about our troops being over there. Instead of leaving to pacify Al-Qaeda, we should be dealing with the two situations separately (post-war Iraq, and finding the miserable bastards of AQ).
I think post-war Iraq deserves another thread. For us to leave the middle east, we?re told we want Iraq to have a secure govt. But right now the infrastructure in Iraq is a mess. The people are not safe or secure or prosperous or happy. Islamic fundamentalists are right in line to take over. Yet if we leave, are we any better off? After all the men and women we?ve lost, and all the money spent, and our economy is the worse it?s been in years? But, it doesn?t seem sending more troops (now to Iraq) would defuse the situation. Certainly controlling Iraq isn?t the answer, even if we did ?liberate? them.. I know you didn?t say we should send more troops and have stated that we?re doing a poor job post-war. But it?s impossible to justify the war by saying 'at least our troops will leave the Middle East and not instigate AQ' when our troops aren?t leaving the Middle East for the foreseeable future, and we will probably need to send in even more before it's all done... not to mention any troops we may need to send in to deal with a potential iran situation, or ones that we *should* send to clean up the mess we made in afghanistan... the only reason AQ is related to iraq in this discussion is because the white house continued to imply that it iraq was involved in 9/11 in order to raise popular support for an invasion.
I understand what you mean about 12 years of resolutions, etc, but there weren?t any known WMD. So find them, and then go in there and do the job the right way. Without that precedence, I don?t see proper defense behind the attack.
Good discussion,
Olive
He has acted irrationally before- but not against the US. If we disagreed with his using WMD against his people, we probably should have acted then. It's hard to forget who gave him those weapons in the first place?
I agree with the part about it being a personal vendetta. It is reason to be wary, but not aggressive.
I agree with you also- and I understand the point of other people. If we were attacked, and the security council did not support us, I think we have the right to defend ourselves. But I don?t think this situation called for that response. ?. However, it is an enormous risk for a politician to stand up on their own and start accusing and asking these sort of questions, especially in a republican controlled (in both houses) congress. So it's sort of not surprising that, despite the growing amount of evidence of improper actions that not much has yet been done? especially when anyone (from politicians to musicians- i.e. Dixie Chicks- to celebrities) who dissents is painted as anti-American, and harassed. This needs to change and hopefully it does, but the fact remains that right now it?s very dangerous for anyone to come out as having a problem with what is going on. It seems the White House has created an environment that is particularly hostile to dissent about the war. This, I think, is a whole other thread ;-)Dreadsox, I'm not sure if you meant that to sound as condescending as it did. But I have to say, I find it demeaning when someone asks me how old I was during a discussion like this. I?ve had a coworker do it (regarding this same issue, which he obtrusively brought up in my office without invitation or desire on my part to discuss). Does "witnessing" an event automatically equal knowledge about it? This sentiment makes it seem like anyone (presumed) "young" shouldn't bother with grown-up stuff.
That said, I know you didn?t say Iran?s nuclear weapon program was pointless. But we?re treating Iraq as if they have already let loose some WMD on us, and ignoring Iran when we know what Iran is capable of. I understand what you are saying that Iran hasn?t used them at ALL- but Iraq never did use them on us (while AQ, on the other hand, DID attack us).
Definitely, Al-Qaeda was angry about our troops being over there. Instead of leaving to pacify Al-Qaeda, we should be dealing with the two situations separately (post-war Iraq, and finding the miserable bastards of AQ).
I think post-war Iraq deserves another thread. For us to leave the middle east, we?re told we want Iraq to have a secure govt. But right now the infrastructure in Iraq is a mess. The people are not safe or secure or prosperous or happy. Islamic fundamentalists are right in line to take over. Yet if we leave, are we any better off? After all the men and women we?ve lost, and all the money spent, and our economy is the worse it?s been in years? But, it doesn?t seem sending more troops (now to Iraq) would defuse the situation. Certainly controlling Iraq isn?t the answer, even if we did ?liberate? them.. I know you didn?t say we should send more troops and have stated that we?re doing a poor job post-war. But it?s impossible to justify the war by saying 'at least our troops will leave the Middle East and not instigate AQ' when our troops aren?t leaving the Middle East for the foreseeable future, and we will probably need to send in even more before it's all done... not to mention any troops we may need to send in to deal with a potential iran situation, or ones that we *should* send to clean up the mess we made in afghanistan... the only reason AQ is related to iraq in this discussion is because the white house continued to imply that it iraq was involved in 9/11 in order to raise popular support for an invasion.
I understand what you mean about 12 years of resolutions, etc, but there weren?t any known WMD. So find them, and then go in there and do the job the right way. Without that precedence, I don?t see proper defense behind the attack.
Good discussion,
Olive
Last edited:
verte76
Blue Crack Addict
I'm feeling so damn frustrated about all of this in the Middle East. Some of the people who have power there are good, but many are not. All of these problems are so old they're not going to be solved by changing someone's government, although this may facilitate some change on down the line. Quite frankly I'm petrified of a fundamentalist outfit taking over Iraq. Whew! It's overwhelming, all of the problems in this part of the world. I've been reading some books about Saudi Arabia, their government and especially the way they treat women. It's awful. 
in the Middle East. Some of the people who have power there are good, but many are not. All of these problems are so old they're not going to be solved by changing someone's government, although this may facilitate some change on down the line. Quite frankly I'm petrified of a fundamentalist outfit taking over Iraq. Whew! It's overwhelming, all of the problems in this part of the world. I've been reading some books about Saudi Arabia, their government and especially the way they treat women. It's awful.
oliveu2cm
Rock n' Roll Doggie FOB
ALEXRUS said:
Thanks Alexrus
oliveu2cm
Rock n' Roll Doggie FOB
Dreadsox said:
Sorry to misinterpret Dreadsox. It is something that bothers me, perhaps I'm sensitive to it.
pub crawler
New Yorker
Dreadsox said:
Dread, the first time I read your post here I couldn't really figure out if you were defending the actions of the current administration or not. I just re-read much of this thread, happened upon your post again, and I still am not totally sure of where you're coming from. I composed some responses to parts of the above-quoted post, but I have decided not to post them because, quite frankly, they partially come from annoyance and frustration and they read, well, rather pissy.
Instead, I will simply say this: You are free to reference events of the late 1980's through the present, and you are free to implicate Clinton in your argument, but the fact remains: President Bush lied in making his case to go to war. I'm talking about the case he made beginning after September 11, 2001 and ramping up late in 2002 up until the invasion began on March 20, 2003.
From abcnews.com -- April 25, 2003:
"But what if Sept. 11 had never happened? Would the United States have gone to war with Iraq? Administration officials and others say no, at least not now.
The Bush administration could probably have lived with the threat of Saddam and might have gone after him eventually if, for example, the Iraqi leader had become more aggressive in pursuing a nuclear program or in sponsoring terrorism.
But again, Sept. 11 changed all that."
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/nightline/US/globalshow_030425.html
pub crawler said:
I have seen so many innacuracies posted by both sides in this thread that it does look like I am riding the fence.
1) Clinton was more responsible for the AL-Qaeda and Iraq situation than Bush. HE had eight years to do something besides lobbing cruise missles.
2) Clinton decimated the intelligence agencies by A) eliminating on the ground agents and increasing electronic intelligence B) Promotions not based on the job you do but on your sex and race. This lead to many of the best agents leaving the agencies of the FBI and CIA. This information comes from "Breakdown" by Bob Gertz.
3) President Bush and his advisers were using 5 year old intelligence to make their case for war. NOT GOOD. Now we are seeing why. WMD are not in as large a quantity as we thought.
4) 9/11 IS directly linked to the fact that we have had soldiers in Saudi Arabia for 12 years to protect them from Iraq.
5) This administration DID mention humanitarian reasons for WAR. It was not their MAIN reason. They should have focused on the FOOD FOR OIL program as being corrupt and not working. It was killing more people than the two wars combined. Saddam used the program to oppresss his people further. The American public was not presented this case forcefully enough. In my opinion it should have been a CENTRAL part of the case. TO say the administration just came up with this after the war is NOT true however.
6) Al-Qaeda hated Saddam Hussein. They were not working together.
7) The terrorist camp in Iraq that Wolf mentioned to my knbowledge was indeed linked to Al-Qaeda, but they were a separate entitiy from Al-Qaeda. They were working to do anything other than Eliminate Saddam because Al-Qaed hated Saddam. So while Wolf is correct we raided a terrorist camp, he is incorrect that they prove that Saddam was linked to Al-Qaeda and 9/11.
8) I believe that he(Saddam) destroyed most if not all of his weapons. I believe that he thought he could deter other nations from looking at him as an easy target by keeping up the thought that he was armed beyond what he was. I believe that he did not think the US would invade without the UN. I think he miscalculated the effect 9/11 had on US FOreign policy.
9) WMD will be found. I believe it.
10) President Bush lied to make his case? I think that the administration is guilty of not listening to the CIA when making its case. I think more and more that there were many who had decided to go after Iraq and were scouring to find a reason that they could use to sell it. I am not ready to yet judge if the case was a lie.
You can PM me anytime if you are confused with something I said.
PEace
Red Ships of Scalla-Festa
Refugee
pub crawler said:
theyre politicians.
Scarletwine
New Yorker
Here's how they're gonna find those WMD's next month
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1016856,00.html
"The former UN inspector hired by the Bush administration to find evidence that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction will claim in a report next month that Iraqi forces were ordered to fire chemical shells at invading coalition troops, according to US reports.
But David Kay, who heads the 1,400-strong Iraq Survey Group, has admitted he has found no trace of the weapons themselves, and cannot explain why they were never used.
One possibility is that the orders were part of an elaborate bluff, in the hope that they would be intercepted by the US and deter an attack. "
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1016856,00.html
"The former UN inspector hired by the Bush administration to find evidence that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction will claim in a report next month that Iraqi forces were ordered to fire chemical shells at invading coalition troops, according to US reports.
But David Kay, who heads the 1,400-strong Iraq Survey Group, has admitted he has found no trace of the weapons themselves, and cannot explain why they were never used.
One possibility is that the orders were part of an elaborate bluff, in the hope that they would be intercepted by the US and deter an attack. "
Similar threads
