Damn, what left-wing, full-of-shit internet sites do you get all of this crap? Why is it that the left-wing press, CBS, ABC, CNN, LA Times, NY Times, etc, not report this shit? Because it is not true, or cannot be verified. Generally, what is written in this thread, from the anti-war aspect, simply has no basis in fact. I would ask for sources, but you would give a left wing conspiracy filled website.
Priap,
>Btw, Bib, to answer your question about an unwelcome millitary base: Cuba.<
We OWN Guantanemo. We are not guests of Cuba. And to my knowledge, Cuba has never asked us to leave. Try again.
Does anyone honestly believe that if any of the charges about the war were true, the left wing press would have done everything possible to bring down Bush before the election? Hell, they tried to use forged documents to bring him down.
It is fine to believe what you wish, but using logical thought to examine the events leading up to, during, and after the Iraq war can only lead to the conclusion that it was just and correct. That is, if you look at things clearly, without preconceived notions.
Look at things from this angle: If Bush had not continued the fight into Iraq, and Saddam had given chemical or biological weapons to terrorsists, and they had been used in the US to kill thousands, if not millions, he surely should have been impeached. It is his DUTY to confront, and take out threats to the US.
If someone cannot recognize risk, analize the risk, and then do something about the risk, there is a term for them. Victim.
>Good question, does it ever make you think that maybe we would'nt have to go through half of this shit now.<
Concerning Saddam after the first Gulf war: I believe that we should have taken him out. But that the US did not showed great restraint. Addressing other statements in this thread, the Shites attempted to overthrow Saddam after GWI, and were killed in mass for doing so.
The Shite represent 60% of the population of Iraq, the Kurds 20%. It is the former lydominant Sunnis, at only 20%, plus terrorist Wahhabis that make up the insurgency. Better to fight them effectively in Iraq, than in the US or Europe. It is a great plan.
>Maybe after we slaughter thousands of people.<
Name the cases where we have "slaughtered thousands of people". You will say Iraq, but then what? What price is OK to bring freedom to millions? You wrote of not being able to bring democracy to the world. Why not? What a wonderful goal, to give each person on the planet the right of self determination. Look what it has done for eastern Europe and Russia. Today, democracy is florishing. Would you rather have dictatorships, perhaps with a left bend?
>Of course we are, cause we put "puppet" governments in place.<
How does that make sense when we promote democracy? How can it be a puppet government when the people of the country vote for their leaders?
>Yea its easy to say it.<
And easier to do. One thing you cannot argue, Bush means what he says, and does what he says. I have no doubt that he would pack up if the elected Iraqi government asked the US to leave.
>If tomorrow the Arabic nations were to decide to create a new oil embargo, America would invade them to get the oil and a vast majority of Americans would support it.<
What horseshit. That statement does not follow the actual events. If the US was only interested in oil flow, they would have been trying to drop the oil embargo. Instead, they tried to uphold the oil embargo. It was France, Germany, Russia, and China that were violating the sanctions against Iraq.
>It was proven that in early summer of 2002, Blair's and Bush's forces bombed Iraq hoping to get Saddam to retaliate, so a war would be justified.<
What? Saddam had been firing at US and UK planes since the end of the first war. He never followed the surrender documents of the first war, and could have been legally attacked at any time for not doing so.
>For 6 months Saddam had well over 400 UN weapons inspectors in Iraq, they were searching everything from his palaces, to the cargo in and out of the country.<
They were never allowed to go where they wanted, when they wanted. He required previous notice of inspection. I have seen the footage of trucks leaving sites to be inspected. I have also seen the footage of inspectors being forbidden entrance to sites. The inspectors were neutered.
In the same vein. What about David Kay's testimony? The guy that stated there are no stockpiles of WMDs in Iraq. Everyone seems to forget that he also stated Saddam was more of a threat, more of a risk, than what we had thought before the war.
>Indeed, all of W's arguements for war with Iraq applied as well to other countries with which the US was quite cozy with. Nuclear weapons and support for terrorists? Try Pakistan- the most likely current home of Bin Laden and world headquarters of Al-Quaeda. Brutally repressive regimes that export Islamic extremism? Try our friends the Saudi's. Violations of UN resolutions? Other countries were in violation of 91 of those. In Feb 2003, Iran- on top of the US's list of rouge states- announced it had begun mining uranium and was preparing a nuclear power plant, which Iran, sitting on an ocean of oil, had no peaceful use for.<
Yes, and each of those situations is being addressed. Pakistan is proving to be cooperative in searching out Al Queda. Seems each month, they are catching more and more of them. As are the Saudis. But they have it tougher, since SA is the home of Wahhabism. Iran is still in negotiation with the Europeans. All of this is great, and the proper procedures are being followed.
Saddam went through all of this for ten years. He had the opportunity to do things right, and even retain power. But he failed to live up to his responsibilities. Now, his people will deal with him.
>What about the harsh sanctions the US put on Iraq killing hundreds, if not thousands of innocent children?<
My God man! The oil for food program was put in place to feed the Iraqi people. It was Saddam stealing from the program, with the help of certain European countries, as well as China, that lead to the suffering of the Iraqis. Which leads to other good questions: Why did certain countries defy the ban on selling weapons to Saddam, at a time when his people were starving?
>We are currently helping rebuild a ruined and devestated Iraq. Fewest casualties? Over 100,000 Iraqi civilians were murdered by American bombings alone. Out of that 10,000 of those were children. How do you justify that?<
First, I do not agree with your figures. I have not seen any credible estimates approaching those numbers. But the point is, freedom does not come without sacrifice. I know you will not understand that. The left never does. Personally, I would rather die fighting for freedom, than live under tyranny.
But the fact is, those deaths cannot be placed at the feet of the coalition. Saddam had the opportunity to leave Iraq, and go into exile. He could have prevented the war, if he loved his country more than power. But then, he proved over and over what kind of leader he was.
Which leads to another point: The previous US support of Saddam that the left questions. How do you test a leader, give him support or not, without watching how he leads over time? After Carter's Iran fiasco, Saddam became an ally. But then, his subsequent actions showed he was a tyrant, and the US distanced itself from him.
So what if Rumsfeld and others from different administrations met with him? When he proved what he was, we changed the way he was treated.
>America thought Bin Laden was in Afghanistan-and he ordered the 9/11 attacks- Saddam DIDN'T. The first gulf war was justified in that he invaded Kuwait. Bush hinted Iraq was behind 9/11, as then National Security Adviser Condoleeza Rice said, "This is a story that is unfolding and is getting clearer, and we're learning more." We, the public, never did.<
First, please use the administration link to look up what the administration said about Iraq and 9/11. The link is already set to search for those events. You will not find the administration saying anything linking Iraq to 9/11.
Now, the fact is, Afghanistan is and was a sovereign nation, just like Iraq. The terrorists may have been associated to a degree with the Taliban, but the terrorists were not Afghanistan. The vast majority of the citizens of Afghanistan were not terrorsts. So, how is that different from Iraq? It has been proven that Iraq had ties to terrorists, and Iraq was harboring terrorsts at the time of the war. So what is the difference?
>That was Donald Rumsfeld that uttered those words.<
Bullshit. Look it up. Tenet was adament in his belief that stockpiles of WMD were present in Iraq. Rumsfeld may have repeated what Tenet said, but Tenet was the one amassing the information.
>George abandoned the Clinton plan to attack Al-Qaeda, which was presented to the incoming Bush administration in Jan 2001, in favor of developing his own. Not to mention that he also ignored warnings in Jan 2001 from the outgoing Clinton National Security team that Al-qaeda and its sleeper cells in the US were the major security threat facing the US.<
Oh horseshit. Clinton had many opportunities to take out Bin Laden, and did not do it. Clinton did nothing against terrorism. He sat on his hands.
Whether you like the war or not, there have been no more attacks on the US. A good offense is always better than a good defense. If nothing else, we are taking the fight to the terrorists, rather than sitting back waiting for another attack.
>Bush said alot, but he never mentioned that immediately after learning that Iraq had used chemical weapons against the Kurds in 87-88, the Reagan Administration blocked a senate resolution imposing sanctions on Iraq, and the succeeding Bush 1 administration gave Saddam's government $1.2 billion in financial credits. Or that the US helped cover up Saddam's poison gas attacks on the Kurds by claiming Iran was responsible. Or that while knowing Iraq was using chemical weapons against Iran, the US gave Iraq satelite intelligence to help it target Iranians. Or that the US supplied Iraq with anthrax. Or that Donald Rumsfeld was Reagan's envoy to cozy up with Saddam in 1983.<
Not that I believe much if any of the above crap, but what does it have to do with the price of eggs in China? The point was, Saddam proved he had, and was willing to use WMDs. So, what happened to them?
If he destroyed them, he should have been able to say where and when he destroyed them. There should have been forensic evidence. But he provided no proof, did nothing to fulfill his obligations under UN resolutions and surrender documents. Why would anyone think he actually destroyed his stockpiles? I believe he either dumped them in the Tigris at the beginning of the war, or shipped them to Syria.
At any rate, if the war had not been prosecuted, he would have waited till the heat was off, made more WMD, and given them to Al Queda for use in the US.
Saddam was paying $25,000 a pop to the families of suicide bombers in Israel. Oil for food money. He was harboring Al-Zarquawi. He would have produced and distributed WMD to advance terrorism.
>>>IF this was an illegal war, why does the left NOT call for the reinstallation of Saddam, and for paying war costs to Iraq?
Priap,
>Btw, Bib, to answer your question about an unwelcome millitary base: Cuba.<
We OWN Guantanemo. We are not guests of Cuba. And to my knowledge, Cuba has never asked us to leave. Try again.
Does anyone honestly believe that if any of the charges about the war were true, the left wing press would have done everything possible to bring down Bush before the election? Hell, they tried to use forged documents to bring him down.
It is fine to believe what you wish, but using logical thought to examine the events leading up to, during, and after the Iraq war can only lead to the conclusion that it was just and correct. That is, if you look at things clearly, without preconceived notions.
Look at things from this angle: If Bush had not continued the fight into Iraq, and Saddam had given chemical or biological weapons to terrorsists, and they had been used in the US to kill thousands, if not millions, he surely should have been impeached. It is his DUTY to confront, and take out threats to the US.
If someone cannot recognize risk, analize the risk, and then do something about the risk, there is a term for them. Victim.
>Good question, does it ever make you think that maybe we would'nt have to go through half of this shit now.<
Concerning Saddam after the first Gulf war: I believe that we should have taken him out. But that the US did not showed great restraint. Addressing other statements in this thread, the Shites attempted to overthrow Saddam after GWI, and were killed in mass for doing so.
The Shite represent 60% of the population of Iraq, the Kurds 20%. It is the former lydominant Sunnis, at only 20%, plus terrorist Wahhabis that make up the insurgency. Better to fight them effectively in Iraq, than in the US or Europe. It is a great plan.
>Maybe after we slaughter thousands of people.<
Name the cases where we have "slaughtered thousands of people". You will say Iraq, but then what? What price is OK to bring freedom to millions? You wrote of not being able to bring democracy to the world. Why not? What a wonderful goal, to give each person on the planet the right of self determination. Look what it has done for eastern Europe and Russia. Today, democracy is florishing. Would you rather have dictatorships, perhaps with a left bend?
>Of course we are, cause we put "puppet" governments in place.<
How does that make sense when we promote democracy? How can it be a puppet government when the people of the country vote for their leaders?
>Yea its easy to say it.<
And easier to do. One thing you cannot argue, Bush means what he says, and does what he says. I have no doubt that he would pack up if the elected Iraqi government asked the US to leave.
>If tomorrow the Arabic nations were to decide to create a new oil embargo, America would invade them to get the oil and a vast majority of Americans would support it.<
What horseshit. That statement does not follow the actual events. If the US was only interested in oil flow, they would have been trying to drop the oil embargo. Instead, they tried to uphold the oil embargo. It was France, Germany, Russia, and China that were violating the sanctions against Iraq.
>It was proven that in early summer of 2002, Blair's and Bush's forces bombed Iraq hoping to get Saddam to retaliate, so a war would be justified.<
What? Saddam had been firing at US and UK planes since the end of the first war. He never followed the surrender documents of the first war, and could have been legally attacked at any time for not doing so.
>For 6 months Saddam had well over 400 UN weapons inspectors in Iraq, they were searching everything from his palaces, to the cargo in and out of the country.<
They were never allowed to go where they wanted, when they wanted. He required previous notice of inspection. I have seen the footage of trucks leaving sites to be inspected. I have also seen the footage of inspectors being forbidden entrance to sites. The inspectors were neutered.
In the same vein. What about David Kay's testimony? The guy that stated there are no stockpiles of WMDs in Iraq. Everyone seems to forget that he also stated Saddam was more of a threat, more of a risk, than what we had thought before the war.
>Indeed, all of W's arguements for war with Iraq applied as well to other countries with which the US was quite cozy with. Nuclear weapons and support for terrorists? Try Pakistan- the most likely current home of Bin Laden and world headquarters of Al-Quaeda. Brutally repressive regimes that export Islamic extremism? Try our friends the Saudi's. Violations of UN resolutions? Other countries were in violation of 91 of those. In Feb 2003, Iran- on top of the US's list of rouge states- announced it had begun mining uranium and was preparing a nuclear power plant, which Iran, sitting on an ocean of oil, had no peaceful use for.<
Yes, and each of those situations is being addressed. Pakistan is proving to be cooperative in searching out Al Queda. Seems each month, they are catching more and more of them. As are the Saudis. But they have it tougher, since SA is the home of Wahhabism. Iran is still in negotiation with the Europeans. All of this is great, and the proper procedures are being followed.
Saddam went through all of this for ten years. He had the opportunity to do things right, and even retain power. But he failed to live up to his responsibilities. Now, his people will deal with him.
>What about the harsh sanctions the US put on Iraq killing hundreds, if not thousands of innocent children?<
My God man! The oil for food program was put in place to feed the Iraqi people. It was Saddam stealing from the program, with the help of certain European countries, as well as China, that lead to the suffering of the Iraqis. Which leads to other good questions: Why did certain countries defy the ban on selling weapons to Saddam, at a time when his people were starving?
>We are currently helping rebuild a ruined and devestated Iraq. Fewest casualties? Over 100,000 Iraqi civilians were murdered by American bombings alone. Out of that 10,000 of those were children. How do you justify that?<
First, I do not agree with your figures. I have not seen any credible estimates approaching those numbers. But the point is, freedom does not come without sacrifice. I know you will not understand that. The left never does. Personally, I would rather die fighting for freedom, than live under tyranny.
But the fact is, those deaths cannot be placed at the feet of the coalition. Saddam had the opportunity to leave Iraq, and go into exile. He could have prevented the war, if he loved his country more than power. But then, he proved over and over what kind of leader he was.
Which leads to another point: The previous US support of Saddam that the left questions. How do you test a leader, give him support or not, without watching how he leads over time? After Carter's Iran fiasco, Saddam became an ally. But then, his subsequent actions showed he was a tyrant, and the US distanced itself from him.
So what if Rumsfeld and others from different administrations met with him? When he proved what he was, we changed the way he was treated.
>America thought Bin Laden was in Afghanistan-and he ordered the 9/11 attacks- Saddam DIDN'T. The first gulf war was justified in that he invaded Kuwait. Bush hinted Iraq was behind 9/11, as then National Security Adviser Condoleeza Rice said, "This is a story that is unfolding and is getting clearer, and we're learning more." We, the public, never did.<
First, please use the administration link to look up what the administration said about Iraq and 9/11. The link is already set to search for those events. You will not find the administration saying anything linking Iraq to 9/11.
Now, the fact is, Afghanistan is and was a sovereign nation, just like Iraq. The terrorists may have been associated to a degree with the Taliban, but the terrorists were not Afghanistan. The vast majority of the citizens of Afghanistan were not terrorsts. So, how is that different from Iraq? It has been proven that Iraq had ties to terrorists, and Iraq was harboring terrorsts at the time of the war. So what is the difference?
>That was Donald Rumsfeld that uttered those words.<
Bullshit. Look it up. Tenet was adament in his belief that stockpiles of WMD were present in Iraq. Rumsfeld may have repeated what Tenet said, but Tenet was the one amassing the information.
>George abandoned the Clinton plan to attack Al-Qaeda, which was presented to the incoming Bush administration in Jan 2001, in favor of developing his own. Not to mention that he also ignored warnings in Jan 2001 from the outgoing Clinton National Security team that Al-qaeda and its sleeper cells in the US were the major security threat facing the US.<
Oh horseshit. Clinton had many opportunities to take out Bin Laden, and did not do it. Clinton did nothing against terrorism. He sat on his hands.
Whether you like the war or not, there have been no more attacks on the US. A good offense is always better than a good defense. If nothing else, we are taking the fight to the terrorists, rather than sitting back waiting for another attack.
>Bush said alot, but he never mentioned that immediately after learning that Iraq had used chemical weapons against the Kurds in 87-88, the Reagan Administration blocked a senate resolution imposing sanctions on Iraq, and the succeeding Bush 1 administration gave Saddam's government $1.2 billion in financial credits. Or that the US helped cover up Saddam's poison gas attacks on the Kurds by claiming Iran was responsible. Or that while knowing Iraq was using chemical weapons against Iran, the US gave Iraq satelite intelligence to help it target Iranians. Or that the US supplied Iraq with anthrax. Or that Donald Rumsfeld was Reagan's envoy to cozy up with Saddam in 1983.<
Not that I believe much if any of the above crap, but what does it have to do with the price of eggs in China? The point was, Saddam proved he had, and was willing to use WMDs. So, what happened to them?
If he destroyed them, he should have been able to say where and when he destroyed them. There should have been forensic evidence. But he provided no proof, did nothing to fulfill his obligations under UN resolutions and surrender documents. Why would anyone think he actually destroyed his stockpiles? I believe he either dumped them in the Tigris at the beginning of the war, or shipped them to Syria.
At any rate, if the war had not been prosecuted, he would have waited till the heat was off, made more WMD, and given them to Al Queda for use in the US.
Saddam was paying $25,000 a pop to the families of suicide bombers in Israel. Oil for food money. He was harboring Al-Zarquawi. He would have produced and distributed WMD to advance terrorism.
>>>IF this was an illegal war, why does the left NOT call for the reinstallation of Saddam, and for paying war costs to Iraq?