- Joined
- Apr 6, 2005
- Messages
- 300
Bib said:
LOL! Yeah, facts are being twisted alright, but not by me :s
I'm glad that you are done with it. You should have said that several posts ago and saved some face.
Current Administration (be prepared-not holding anything back)
LOL! Yeah, facts are being twisted alright, but not by me :s
I'm glad that you are done with it. You should have said that several posts ago and saved some face.
- Joined
- May 8, 2004
- Messages
- 2,151
Bib, why ask a stupid question like that? Reinstalling that man would be as stupid and irresponsible as calling for the immediate removal of U.S. troops. What basis that was given BEFORE the invasion has held up so far?
The Saudi's active support of terrorism isn't a major concern I guess.
The Saudi's active support of terrorism isn't a major concern I guess.
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2003
- Messages
- 668
I'm trying to keep out of other people's discussions here, but that whole "Well if the war is unlawful, then why don't we reinstall the regime?" line is pretty bogus. It's a cheap attempt at a qucik conversational trump, not a serious question. It is an entirely impossbile scenario, or more techincally speaking a 'loaded question.' These types of things aren't even allowed in high school debates. It's essentially impossible to make things as they were or somehow 'wipe the slate clean,' so even posing the question is just an exercise in useless rhetorical waxing.
Wow guys, very mature. Do not even reply to the evidence presented, or argue the points. Just declare yourselves the winner. That works for me. You guys obviously have the right opinions and are in a solid frame of mind.
You are well prepared to face life with all the answers.
After a few decades, it should be interesting for you to rethink your previous stances, and evaluate them. It was for me.
Bigger
You are well prepared to face life with all the answers.
After a few decades, it should be interesting for you to rethink your previous stances, and evaluate them. It was for me.
Bigger
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2005
- Messages
- 300
Bib said:
Sour grapes?
Iwant8,
>What basis that was given BEFORE the invasion has held up so far?<
ALL of them except stockpiles of WMDs. Saddam's previous actions were obviously still there. His capacity and desire to obtain and use WMDs was still there. His continued support for terrorism was still there.
************
Generally, when something is done illegally, or under false pretenses, as alleged in this case, then it is useful to make reparations, and try to return things to their previous state. Saddam is still alive. If his removal was illegal, if the US was wrong to invade, and remove Saddam, then obviously the correct course of action is to reinstate him as the leader of Iraq, with our apologies.
But it seems nobody in the entire world is calling for this. It seems that almost everyone agrees that Saddam was a bad guy. Bad for Iraq, and bad for the world. He does not seem to have any support whatsoever. Odd that.
Bigger
>What basis that was given BEFORE the invasion has held up so far?<
ALL of them except stockpiles of WMDs. Saddam's previous actions were obviously still there. His capacity and desire to obtain and use WMDs was still there. His continued support for terrorism was still there.
************
Generally, when something is done illegally, or under false pretenses, as alleged in this case, then it is useful to make reparations, and try to return things to their previous state. Saddam is still alive. If his removal was illegal, if the US was wrong to invade, and remove Saddam, then obviously the correct course of action is to reinstate him as the leader of Iraq, with our apologies.
But it seems nobody in the entire world is calling for this. It seems that almost everyone agrees that Saddam was a bad guy. Bad for Iraq, and bad for the world. He does not seem to have any support whatsoever. Odd that.
Bigger
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2003
- Messages
- 668
Bib, I wasn't declaring any sort of superiority in argument, simply stating that the line about reinstalling the old guard isn't a fair question. I'm sure you realize this. If the person says 'yes' then they support brutal dictators. If they say 'no,' then they contradict their own opinion. It isn't even a possible scenario, hence not really applicable. A person can be against a government like Iraq's previous incarnation, but they can also be against deposing them in the fashion that we have approached Iraq.
Most revealing was W's different approaches to Iraq and its fellow "axis of evil" member North Korea. A month before this war began, the administration acknowledged that the North Koreans already had nuclear weapons and they could build 4 to 6 in months- a LITTLE fact the Bush White House had kept hidden from Congress until after the vote to authorize war with Iraq. The North Koreans also had good bomb-grade plutonium to sell to terrorists or others, and missiles that might be able to reach the US. Iraq had NONE of these things. North Korea had "one of the best, most robust bioweapons programs on earth," according to Under Secretary of State John Bolton. It also had 1.1 million disciplined troops and just put its 1.8 million reservists on alert and threatened a peemptive attack against US forces.
Yet North Korea, Bush kept saying, was not a "crisis". Iraq was the crisis that needed immediate US invasion.
All that said, their were all but 28 other countries with the same or Worse regimes than Saddam's. I am not supporting Saddam at all, but I'm saying treat everyone the same. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
Yet North Korea, Bush kept saying, was not a "crisis". Iraq was the crisis that needed immediate US invasion.
All that said, their were all but 28 other countries with the same or Worse regimes than Saddam's. I am not supporting Saddam at all, but I'm saying treat everyone the same. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
- Joined
- May 8, 2004
- Messages
- 2,151
It's now know Saddam had virtually a demoralized military and very little support within his own country period. That's not a justification for a preemptive war. There is the matter of Saddam's imminent threat to the U.S. however, which is now obviously a lie fed to us on purpose. I think we were made out to be fools while all this crap was being fed through the media and press conferences/addresses. It was pushed and pushed that Iraq was an imminent threat to the U.S. and people still buy it.
The Bush administration, and Bush in particular, in the State of the Union address before invasion, stated plainly that he wished to confront Saddam, and remove him, BEFORE he became an imminent threat. He made clear the risks involved in going to war, and the possible risks in not going to war. I saw no subterfuge.
Confronting a leader like Saddam before he becomes an imminent threat makes good sense. Why wait until you are about to be blasted?
The left seems to want to discount, if not completely ignore the history of Saddam for a decade and a half. They do not wish to look to closely at the man he was, his plans and asperations. You would almost think Saddam had made Iraq into a peace loving, agrarian society. When nothing could be further from the truth.
We will never know what Saddam could have done in connection with his known terrorist connections. Thank God for that. But each person needs to determine if the world is a better place with him in power, or not. And whether removing him was the correct course of action, or not. It simply makes no sense that the coalition can be condemned for his removal, while at the same time celebrating his removal.
Are there other regimes of worry in the world? Surely. And there are other regimes we will probably have to eventually face militarily. But Saddam's time had come. His frame of mind and intentions were plain and clear. The other world problems are relatively new, in comparison to Saddam. Things like negotiation, etc, are still being played out concerning countries such as North Korea and Iran. Why not let this play out?
Bigger
Confronting a leader like Saddam before he becomes an imminent threat makes good sense. Why wait until you are about to be blasted?
The left seems to want to discount, if not completely ignore the history of Saddam for a decade and a half. They do not wish to look to closely at the man he was, his plans and asperations. You would almost think Saddam had made Iraq into a peace loving, agrarian society. When nothing could be further from the truth.
We will never know what Saddam could have done in connection with his known terrorist connections. Thank God for that. But each person needs to determine if the world is a better place with him in power, or not. And whether removing him was the correct course of action, or not. It simply makes no sense that the coalition can be condemned for his removal, while at the same time celebrating his removal.
Are there other regimes of worry in the world? Surely. And there are other regimes we will probably have to eventually face militarily. But Saddam's time had come. His frame of mind and intentions were plain and clear. The other world problems are relatively new, in comparison to Saddam. Things like negotiation, etc, are still being played out concerning countries such as North Korea and Iran. Why not let this play out?
Bigger
- Joined
- May 8, 2004
- Messages
- 2,151
Bib said:
Actually, you are 100% percent wrong in that the removal of Saddam is good theoretically, however now that he is gone there is no legitimate government there, the place is chaotic, people are living in worse conditions today than they did under Saddam, and terrorist activity has shot up dramatically since. The guy was evil and did horrible things, but in some of those thing the U.S. aided. The U.S. and its school of Americas is a terrible thing too and basically is terrorism. There are evil and corrupt people willing to sacrifice millions of lives for some sort of gain, are willing to lie to get it done, and that will probably never stop, but if there is to be a war make certain if you lie to the public, exaggerate claims, and/or distort/deny/kill/or suppress news reports or information in any way don't get caught. Otherwise the people will be pretty pissed wouldn't you think? So this is not about an imminent threat to the U.S., or whether or not Saddam had the weapons of mass destruction (mustard gas? anthrax?) regardless of the fact that we gave them these things, or that he had connections to al-Qaida (undeniably prove it), but it was about his intent? It was because he was an evil guy who didn't play by the U.S. rules? Well, then why claim all of that other stuff since it is obvious the U.S. no longer needs to prove their justifications to anyone before INVADING. Shouldn't the BEST NUMERO UNO SUPenis EnlargementR POWER be held to higher standards then everyone else? There are treaties and agreements out there that would view what the U.S. Congress, President, Cabinet, and others decided to do was a violation of international law.
Bib, noone here disagrees with you on Saddam being an evil man who was pissed at the U.S., but documents that exist indicate Saddam/Iraq was no threat to the U.S. You need PROOF. You can't make it a goal to go into a country militarily three years prior while just looking for any reason to go in whatsoever and then still not have undeniably proven your main justification for the war two years after the fact.
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2003
- Messages
- 668
I agree with Iwant8 here - the 'imminent threat' thing was a publicity campaign and pretty much ex post facto so far as the desire to invade Iraq. Paul Wolfowitz (one of the main engineers of the Iraq thing, along with Richard Pearle, with Cheney and some others as avid proponents) used to beg the Clinton administration to go into Iraq and the desire to do so has been on record amongst the neoconservative clique that molds most of Bush's policy for a long time. There are memos and testimony clearly suggesting that the issue of getting into Iraq had been discussed previous to 9/11.
However, as has already been said, we also knew that Iraq's military was weak and had no credible evidence that they had the capability to produce a nuke or a reinstated arms program (and so far as militant nations with WMDs and terrorist ties, Iraq was way down the list of hot zones). Contrary to what some seem to beleive, the porduction and delivery of nuclear arms isn't something they can just put together on a weekend under the radar. I've seen numerous military and intelligence people pretty much scoff at the notion that Iraq was some kind of looming threat to the world, and choosing to believe otherwise in the face of everything we know is exactly that, a choice. That choice, however, involves ignoring a lot of things in favor of a pre-packaged explanation. Either way, our military rolled through there like a knife through warm butter and we found absolutely NOTHING threatening in terms of WMDs or even operational weapons programs. As has been said by many others - if they really where a credible threat to us than we have the world's most incompitent intelligence network.
Meanwhile, people are getting blown up on a daily basis and large portions of the country still lack power and utilities. It's costing us billions and billions of dollars jsut to keep total anarchy from setting in, and $8 billion dollars of budgeted money has just vanished, totally unaccounted for, so we know there's criminal enterprise and war profiteering happening already. Let me be clear on my opinon - this war is not a positive thing for the country and has only weakened our position in the world, as well as caused monsterous numbers of unnecessary deaths and harm. All for what? Well, I guess we'll see, but I really don't see this as having some sort of lasting benefit for the nation down the road.
However, as has already been said, we also knew that Iraq's military was weak and had no credible evidence that they had the capability to produce a nuke or a reinstated arms program (and so far as militant nations with WMDs and terrorist ties, Iraq was way down the list of hot zones). Contrary to what some seem to beleive, the porduction and delivery of nuclear arms isn't something they can just put together on a weekend under the radar. I've seen numerous military and intelligence people pretty much scoff at the notion that Iraq was some kind of looming threat to the world, and choosing to believe otherwise in the face of everything we know is exactly that, a choice. That choice, however, involves ignoring a lot of things in favor of a pre-packaged explanation. Either way, our military rolled through there like a knife through warm butter and we found absolutely NOTHING threatening in terms of WMDs or even operational weapons programs. As has been said by many others - if they really where a credible threat to us than we have the world's most incompitent intelligence network.
Meanwhile, people are getting blown up on a daily basis and large portions of the country still lack power and utilities. It's costing us billions and billions of dollars jsut to keep total anarchy from setting in, and $8 billion dollars of budgeted money has just vanished, totally unaccounted for, so we know there's criminal enterprise and war profiteering happening already. Let me be clear on my opinon - this war is not a positive thing for the country and has only weakened our position in the world, as well as caused monsterous numbers of unnecessary deaths and harm. All for what? Well, I guess we'll see, but I really don't see this as having some sort of lasting benefit for the nation down the road.
Last edited:
Originally posted by Swank:
For what? Exactly. W has dramatically increased world terror, and has NOT made us any safer by illegally invading Iraq and allowing the situation to fall apart in his hands.
Some have said (very few) Iraq needed to be invaded. The stated reasons we went for WMDs and al-Quaeda links, none of them found. The Downing Street Memo shows Bush had a devious plan to invade Iraq either with evidence or excuse, so his aims for the invasion are obscured. Regardless of his political reasons for it, Bush sent Americans into a death trap in Iraq. We know know that we had no exit strategy and his plans for rebuilding were bad at best and have been badly faltered. Futhermore, Bush sent us to Iraq badly underarmed, undersupplied, and in miniscule numbers. His own advisers said it would cost $300 billion and take 300,000 soliders to do the job right. Bush fired them. We've already approved an $87 billion emergency funding measure and Bush asked for some $100 billion more to fight this alleged "war on terror" since. Soldiers reported not having enough water, being undersupplied, and in unarmored humvees. The National Guard soliders Bush sent to Iraq (which have never before been deployed outside the US), have an expected ration of 3 bullets per week.
We are now fighting a massive insurgency in Iraq. This forced is comprised mainly of Iraqis aided by foreigners. Why fight us? Why do they pick up arms to fight against their so called, "liberators"? Because we have failed them. We falted to deliver on our promise of helping them build a free nation. We should not have held the vote for the new government in June 2003, not June 2004. We lost a year of initiative and exposed Iraq and ourselves to a year of chaos and anarchy. The Ba'ath party was gone by June. "Mission Accomplished". But we wandered in the desert for another year, when hundreds of our soldiers were killed, and thousands injured. What do scavengers do when they see a sickly animal wandering through the desert? They swoop in to pick it off like the insurgents. We have shown our weakness in Iraq and we are being harped upon by vultures. Shame is brought to our nation and our military because of Bush! We have shown ourselves to be monsters and occupiers, not friends. In our rush to squeeze info which may not have been vital out of pows, we demonstrate our Christian values trough torture. Now we are the laughing stock of the world, because we let photos of these indespicable acts be circulated.
We've given terrorists enhanced motivation to attack us and new methods to recruit forces. We have exposed our supply lines to them and left unguarded ammo dumps for them to loot. What is this, Ramadan or Easter? We have given them vast expanses of unguarded desert, small towns and villages, and unruly urban centers in which to operate free of charge and made Iraqis sympathetic to their cause by our terrorous blunders. Iraq is the center for global terrorism in 2005. Not in 2002. In these years of the war on terror, George Bush has dramatically increased world terror and shamed our country.
For what? Exactly. W has dramatically increased world terror, and has NOT made us any safer by illegally invading Iraq and allowing the situation to fall apart in his hands.
Some have said (very few) Iraq needed to be invaded. The stated reasons we went for WMDs and al-Quaeda links, none of them found. The Downing Street Memo shows Bush had a devious plan to invade Iraq either with evidence or excuse, so his aims for the invasion are obscured. Regardless of his political reasons for it, Bush sent Americans into a death trap in Iraq. We know know that we had no exit strategy and his plans for rebuilding were bad at best and have been badly faltered. Futhermore, Bush sent us to Iraq badly underarmed, undersupplied, and in miniscule numbers. His own advisers said it would cost $300 billion and take 300,000 soliders to do the job right. Bush fired them. We've already approved an $87 billion emergency funding measure and Bush asked for some $100 billion more to fight this alleged "war on terror" since. Soldiers reported not having enough water, being undersupplied, and in unarmored humvees. The National Guard soliders Bush sent to Iraq (which have never before been deployed outside the US), have an expected ration of 3 bullets per week.
We are now fighting a massive insurgency in Iraq. This forced is comprised mainly of Iraqis aided by foreigners. Why fight us? Why do they pick up arms to fight against their so called, "liberators"? Because we have failed them. We falted to deliver on our promise of helping them build a free nation. We should not have held the vote for the new government in June 2003, not June 2004. We lost a year of initiative and exposed Iraq and ourselves to a year of chaos and anarchy. The Ba'ath party was gone by June. "Mission Accomplished". But we wandered in the desert for another year, when hundreds of our soldiers were killed, and thousands injured. What do scavengers do when they see a sickly animal wandering through the desert? They swoop in to pick it off like the insurgents. We have shown our weakness in Iraq and we are being harped upon by vultures. Shame is brought to our nation and our military because of Bush! We have shown ourselves to be monsters and occupiers, not friends. In our rush to squeeze info which may not have been vital out of pows, we demonstrate our Christian values trough torture. Now we are the laughing stock of the world, because we let photos of these indespicable acts be circulated.
We've given terrorists enhanced motivation to attack us and new methods to recruit forces. We have exposed our supply lines to them and left unguarded ammo dumps for them to loot. What is this, Ramadan or Easter? We have given them vast expanses of unguarded desert, small towns and villages, and unruly urban centers in which to operate free of charge and made Iraqis sympathetic to their cause by our terrorous blunders. Iraq is the center for global terrorism in 2005. Not in 2002. In these years of the war on terror, George Bush has dramatically increased world terror and shamed our country.
Well, I see no sense in continuing this debate. It seems the source and quality of facts and evidence is so widely divided, that we could never come to any agreement. I try to stay current on events, using many different sources. I generally go for sources that provide bald facts, then I use them to come to my own conclusions. If a source has an obvious bias, or delivers it's own slant and conclusion, then I discount, or ignore it. Obviously, have not seen or heard some of the things reported here.
I have tried to look at the Iraq situation from a neutral standpoint. I do see the logic in invading, and I support the war. Both from the standpoint of a preemptive invasion, and the aftermath. I believe if you could look at things from a neutral position, you would be able to see the logic and common sense of removing Saddam. I see little, if any difference in removing the Taliban. In fact, I can see a better case for removing Saddam, mainly due to his greater resources, and ability to create havoc in the aftermath of 9/11. I believe the US, and the world in general, are safer today, and the benefits of the price paid will be reaped for decades to come. I also believe the vast majority of the coalition military feel the same way. The ones that died understood what they were fighting for, coalition, Northern Alliance, and Iraqis.
Whether it is foreign fighters, old Bath party members, Al Queda, whatever, it is better to fight them, and defeat them, in Iraq and Afghanistan, or Syria and Iran, than in the US or Europe.
I have not seen these questions sufficiently addressed. Why are they killing Iraqi's? Another is, the current violence could be stopped immediately, if Saddam or his Bathist successor was returned to power, and his goons were once again suppressing, killing, maiming, the people of Iraq..... If fighting for their freedom is so bad, why not get out of Iraq, and allow Saddam to have it back?
See, we will never know the converse of the coalition actions in Iraq. Nobody will ever know the bad that might have occured, if we had not gone in. I think that is a good thing.
In a situation this complicated, if I were anti-Bush, and/or anti-US, it would be very easy to find points to argue, and so easy to voice outrage. So I understand where many are coming from. I do not trust any government, and never will. I voted for, and supported Carter, until the Iranian fiasco. It was obvious to me then, that if not confronted, the problem in Iran would only grow much worse. And it has. The speeches and writings of the fundamentalists were fairly clear at the time. It should have bene easy to see the portent for the west. But those warnings were ignored for so long. To date, I cannot find very much fault with anything Bush has done.
Even then, back in the late 70s and early 80s, it all had to do with freedom and choice.
As I said before, within the next 5-10 years, all of this will be much clearer, and everyone will be able to make more informed judgements. I feel like this will follow other periods in history, when evil leaders/regimes were removed or destroyed, and democracy allowed to flower.
This brings up something I have not seen discussed: Do any of you know exactly what this particular Jihad is concerned with, what the beef against the west and the US in particular is? Does anyone here know what Saddam's goals were for the middle east? Same question concerning Bin Laden. Do any of you know about Wahhabism? And what Wahhabism has in store for the west?
And finally, do all of you who disagree with the Bush administration actions honestly not see any threat or risk from leaving Saddam in power after 9/11? Do you not see how attractive Al Queda and other groups could be to him in order to strike at the west? How easy it would be to reinstate his WMD programs after the inspectors left, which they must have eventually done? Then supply the terrorists with the WMDs they so wanted, distancing himself from the acts? How Saddam's previous actions made this scenario all to easy and obvious? Hell, he was giving $25,000 to the families of suicide bombers in Isreal. The question is not what he would have done, but how far he would have gone. His previous actions made the case for his removal for me.
Bigger
I have tried to look at the Iraq situation from a neutral standpoint. I do see the logic in invading, and I support the war. Both from the standpoint of a preemptive invasion, and the aftermath. I believe if you could look at things from a neutral position, you would be able to see the logic and common sense of removing Saddam. I see little, if any difference in removing the Taliban. In fact, I can see a better case for removing Saddam, mainly due to his greater resources, and ability to create havoc in the aftermath of 9/11. I believe the US, and the world in general, are safer today, and the benefits of the price paid will be reaped for decades to come. I also believe the vast majority of the coalition military feel the same way. The ones that died understood what they were fighting for, coalition, Northern Alliance, and Iraqis.
Whether it is foreign fighters, old Bath party members, Al Queda, whatever, it is better to fight them, and defeat them, in Iraq and Afghanistan, or Syria and Iran, than in the US or Europe.
I have not seen these questions sufficiently addressed. Why are they killing Iraqi's? Another is, the current violence could be stopped immediately, if Saddam or his Bathist successor was returned to power, and his goons were once again suppressing, killing, maiming, the people of Iraq..... If fighting for their freedom is so bad, why not get out of Iraq, and allow Saddam to have it back?
See, we will never know the converse of the coalition actions in Iraq. Nobody will ever know the bad that might have occured, if we had not gone in. I think that is a good thing.
In a situation this complicated, if I were anti-Bush, and/or anti-US, it would be very easy to find points to argue, and so easy to voice outrage. So I understand where many are coming from. I do not trust any government, and never will. I voted for, and supported Carter, until the Iranian fiasco. It was obvious to me then, that if not confronted, the problem in Iran would only grow much worse. And it has. The speeches and writings of the fundamentalists were fairly clear at the time. It should have bene easy to see the portent for the west. But those warnings were ignored for so long. To date, I cannot find very much fault with anything Bush has done.
Even then, back in the late 70s and early 80s, it all had to do with freedom and choice.
As I said before, within the next 5-10 years, all of this will be much clearer, and everyone will be able to make more informed judgements. I feel like this will follow other periods in history, when evil leaders/regimes were removed or destroyed, and democracy allowed to flower.
This brings up something I have not seen discussed: Do any of you know exactly what this particular Jihad is concerned with, what the beef against the west and the US in particular is? Does anyone here know what Saddam's goals were for the middle east? Same question concerning Bin Laden. Do any of you know about Wahhabism? And what Wahhabism has in store for the west?
And finally, do all of you who disagree with the Bush administration actions honestly not see any threat or risk from leaving Saddam in power after 9/11? Do you not see how attractive Al Queda and other groups could be to him in order to strike at the west? How easy it would be to reinstate his WMD programs after the inspectors left, which they must have eventually done? Then supply the terrorists with the WMDs they so wanted, distancing himself from the acts? How Saddam's previous actions made this scenario all to easy and obvious? Hell, he was giving $25,000 to the families of suicide bombers in Isreal. The question is not what he would have done, but how far he would have gone. His previous actions made the case for his removal for me.
Bigger
- Joined
- May 8, 2004
- Messages
- 2,151
Bib, how can someone be anti-U.S. when they criticize people and corporations that do things that are against everything the U.S. stands for? That's not anti-U.S. that's standing up for your country and holding the people accountable for their actions so that our families aren't placed in harm's way needlessly. If I beleive something to be wrong I'm going to say it.
- Joined
- May 8, 2004
- Messages
- 2,151
I don't see how "fighting them in Iraq" makes it less likely that an attack will happen in the U.S. again. If anything it has allowed for more time to plan, it has made it easier to recruit, and has provided further motivation to attack again in the States. Not to poke at it too much, but terror alerts were going crazy late in 04 and really were used in a disgraceful way. So, I guess either the terror alerts were propaganda and/or ways to scare the public or they were real and that argument of fighting them there so we don't have to fight them here doesn't make sense. The time, efforts, and money spent in Iraq have taken away resources and possibly sources of intel to finding terrorists (how diplomatic does the U.S. look to some of the countries that might have helped us?) I want to move away from this though as I too believe what I believe because of the facts that I've seen. My perception on the Bush Administration and family in general doesn't make me a liberal or a Democrat (I'm not even a Democrat), but it does make me suspecting of anything the Bush administration does particulalry after so much has been revealed that spells corruption and deception.
I don't want to argue anymore over the invasion because I know I'm right, but there's no pride in that.
Bottom line: Do whatever possible to legitimize the Iraqi government. I don't know how that is going to happen right now. I think despite the subcommittees that have been created and assigned to the overseeing of reconstruction projects/funds there is no way to thwart or even decrease the amount of corruption in the way of embezzlement. The reconstruction process includes the funding of all rebuilding projects as in infrastructure, but more importantly temporary refuge by means of shelter, food, clean water, and medical attention. How can the Iraqi people see the U.S. backed government and the U.S. as a savior? The three block war cannot succeed in Iraq because of the state of things as there is hardly a way to know where and when an attack will take place. The more people that die and the longer that the U.S. is there the worse things will get, but despite the implication the U.S. cannot leave as the country would be literally thrown to the wolves. It was policy in the Middle East that got the U.S. military into this mess and it's the policy that will keep it there. Look at all of those that were staunch supporters of the removal of Saddam through military force and notice where they are today, where they stood yesteryear, and where their sights are heading. Look at PNAC, and look at what they believe. Michael Ledeen is a scary man, but maybe he was right when he said Iran was just as much if not more important to deal with than Iraq. (although I believe I'll disagree slightly as he all but made it obvious he wanted an invasion of Iran) Iran did more for terrorism than Iraq as has Saudi Arabia. North Korea, Syria, and others all could be made a case for as to posing the same threat to the U.S. It's important not to let policy be dictated by the thoughts and interests of few and then further exploited by ignoring the potential consequences particularly those that might lead to the rise of extremists, tyrants, or otherwise nondiplomatic governments. Every country could find justification for warring with another at some point. Something needs to change.
I don't want to argue anymore over the invasion because I know I'm right, but there's no pride in that.
Bottom line: Do whatever possible to legitimize the Iraqi government. I don't know how that is going to happen right now. I think despite the subcommittees that have been created and assigned to the overseeing of reconstruction projects/funds there is no way to thwart or even decrease the amount of corruption in the way of embezzlement. The reconstruction process includes the funding of all rebuilding projects as in infrastructure, but more importantly temporary refuge by means of shelter, food, clean water, and medical attention. How can the Iraqi people see the U.S. backed government and the U.S. as a savior? The three block war cannot succeed in Iraq because of the state of things as there is hardly a way to know where and when an attack will take place. The more people that die and the longer that the U.S. is there the worse things will get, but despite the implication the U.S. cannot leave as the country would be literally thrown to the wolves. It was policy in the Middle East that got the U.S. military into this mess and it's the policy that will keep it there. Look at all of those that were staunch supporters of the removal of Saddam through military force and notice where they are today, where they stood yesteryear, and where their sights are heading. Look at PNAC, and look at what they believe. Michael Ledeen is a scary man, but maybe he was right when he said Iran was just as much if not more important to deal with than Iraq. (although I believe I'll disagree slightly as he all but made it obvious he wanted an invasion of Iran) Iran did more for terrorism than Iraq as has Saudi Arabia. North Korea, Syria, and others all could be made a case for as to posing the same threat to the U.S. It's important not to let policy be dictated by the thoughts and interests of few and then further exploited by ignoring the potential consequences particularly those that might lead to the rise of extremists, tyrants, or otherwise nondiplomatic governments. Every country could find justification for warring with another at some point. Something needs to change.
Iwant8,
>Bib, how can someone be anti-U.S. when they criticize people and corporations that do things that are against everything the U.S. stands for? That's not anti-U.S. that's standing up for your country and holding the people accountable for their actions so that our families aren't placed in harm's way needlessly. If I beleive something to be wrong I'm going to say it.<
I agree with everything you wrote in the above paragraph. When the facts and logic dictate a need for criticism, then that should absolutely happen with a loud voice. As I said above, something as complicated as the Iraqi situation will undoubtably cause criticism.
My point has been that often, the criticism is not based on fact or logic. Saddam is about to be tried for horrific crimes against his own people, other nations, the world. He is a threat, a risk, no longer. He was removed through invasion, after given the opportunity to leave peaceably.
People are saying the US and other coalition members were wrong to invade, to remove the threat. But no other actions by anyone in the world had made any difference. In fact, things in Iraq were only getting worse, and more threatening.
Indeed today, things are much better. Long ignored infrastructure repaired, education for all, children being fed, and on and on. Insurgents (other Arabs) are still killing their own, as they were when Saddam was in office. But this speaks directly, and logically to some of the reasons for invasion. Namely power. The minority totalitarian facist regime in Iraq, and Al Queda, who have displayed so much lack of respect for human life, do not even have respect for other Muslim's lives. They are trying to regain power, in the same ways in which they governed, and in the case of Al Queda, wish to govern. Through destruction, terror, killing. Just look at the roadmap laid down by the Taliban to get an idea of what many power hungry Muslims want for government.
Now, if regime change in Iraq, by force, was wrong, then there should be a major UN inquiry, and perhaps a trial at the Hague. People and governments should be investigated. And if this regime change was wrong, then the previous government of Iraq should be reinstalled, and those that removed him punished. Bush, Blair, Howard, et al, should be called on the carpet. That is logical.
To say that regime change through force was wrong, and yet not call for righting the wrong, is illogical.
Of course, the above named leaders could have been rejected by their constituents, but they were returned to office.
As far as fighting the insurgents, Al Queda, etc, in the middle east reducing the threat at home, this is an age old, tried and true tactic. When you attack a threat at it's source, the tendency is that the opponent will fall back into a defensive mode, and drop it's offensive goals. This has been true throughout history, and is proving true in fighting terrorism. Let's hope that it remains true.
Be warned that the moment offensive actions are stopped, for whatever reason, Al Queda, etc, will begin to shift back to an offensive posture. Cover your head. As Bush said, this is a generational conflict. It may be decades before the thought processes that generated Al Queda, Wahhabism, etc, are changed enough to allow for true peace. Until that time, I hope the west remains on the offensive.
As far as intel goes, going to the source of the problems, the middle east, has provided a ton of intel. Much more than we could ever have hoped for staying at arms length.
>How can the Iraqi people see the U.S. backed government and the U.S. as a savior?<
That will truly occur only after the final result can be judged. Anything else is just a snapshot in time. But since the candidates semi-backed by the US lost in the elections, I don't think the Iraqis believe this is a puppet US backed government. The US backs the Iraqi goverment because they are the government the people of Iraq elected. So far, they are working well. And things are absolutely getting better on a measureable, daily basis. The areas not affected by the insurgents, outside of the Sunni triangle, are doing amazingly well. It appears that every unbiased appraisal of what is happening in the daily lives of Iraqis is positive.
As to the rest of your last paragraph, the US will probably leave Iraq much sooner than most think possible. At least the vast majority of our troops will leave. At any time, the Iraqi government can ask that we leave, and as the administration has consistantly said, we will leave. At some point, whether the Iraqis wish it or not, we will leave, because our presence will cause more problems than it solves. But first, obviously the Iraqis must be able to protect themselves, and become more effective in fighting the insurgents.
As of now, the insurgents are essentially only killing Iraqis. Whether we are there or not, freedom loving Iraqis will have to fight the power hungry minorities that are there now.
This is perhaps the biggest sin of the US and other coalition members that I see. By confronting the people with this mindset, we have unleashed them on the Iraqis. It seems they feel that by killing Iraqis, it will further their cause, by "teaching the peaceful a lesson". I believe they are wrong, and that the peace loving Muslims of the area are becoming more and more tired of the lesson. Is this not the exact meaning of freedom? Freedom has never been cheap, much less free. And for Iraq to be a truly free, democratic country, it will cost many more lives. As history has shown, success in striving for freedom will have wonderful benefits for Iraq.
Iraq could be sheep, willing to subsist under the thumb of the tyrants. But I believe as with others in the world, they will choose the freedom they are now offered.
As for the other world threats, it is surely possible that force will be needed to reduce or eliminate them. This is nothing new. I am heartened by the actions, and demonstrations by other middle eastern countries. Libya is changing. The people of Iran, especially the young, are growing very tired of the Mullahs. It appears that Iran may well implode, the citizens rise up, and force be a non-issue. SA, as the home of Wahhabism, is becoming more and more democratic, as are other countries in the region.
North Korea is a huge problem, in that Kim is a lunatic. Clinton royaly fucked up the situation by trusting a madman to stick to his word. But he is now calling for the resumption of six party talks. It appears that he is a talker, a posturer, and not a fighter. Let's hope so.
But the fact remains, he has NOT attacked outside parties, either locally or in the world, or even taken an offensive posture. He probably does have nukes, but does that make him a greater threat than Saddam had PROVEN to be through his actions?
Kim knows that if he ever used his nukes, he would surely die a quick death, and his country would be destroyed. He does not want to use them, except as a negotiating chip for power and monetary gains.
Saddam on the other hand, already had the monetary power to do as he wished. Which was to become the head of a Pan Islamic state. Same as Bin Laden by the way. He had already proven that he would produce, and even use lesser WMDs for his own advancement.
So what is the greater threat, a guy that will not use his weapons, leading to his destruction? Or a guy that has proven he will use his weapons? Which is more logical?
I have no doubt that the countries of the middle east, and indeed the world, could all be peaceful democratic entities. But it will take time, and yes, lives. In the end, that will be the ONLY opportunity to have true peace; when the minds of the peaceful majority of the world, have the same import as the power hungry, minority, armed, evil people of the world. Sad but essential, it will take other peace loving, well armed democracies to level the playing field, and give a chance of success and freedom to the peace loving people. And that is simply a fact. But at the same time, success will mean the chance of another 9/11 ever occuring will be much more remote.
Of course, if democracy becomes universal, it will be essential that population control also become universal. If not, diminishing resources will cause more war, even between democracies. But that is another subject, and problem, for the hopeful future.
Sorry for the long post.
Bigger
>Bib, how can someone be anti-U.S. when they criticize people and corporations that do things that are against everything the U.S. stands for? That's not anti-U.S. that's standing up for your country and holding the people accountable for their actions so that our families aren't placed in harm's way needlessly. If I beleive something to be wrong I'm going to say it.<
I agree with everything you wrote in the above paragraph. When the facts and logic dictate a need for criticism, then that should absolutely happen with a loud voice. As I said above, something as complicated as the Iraqi situation will undoubtably cause criticism.
My point has been that often, the criticism is not based on fact or logic. Saddam is about to be tried for horrific crimes against his own people, other nations, the world. He is a threat, a risk, no longer. He was removed through invasion, after given the opportunity to leave peaceably.
People are saying the US and other coalition members were wrong to invade, to remove the threat. But no other actions by anyone in the world had made any difference. In fact, things in Iraq were only getting worse, and more threatening.
Indeed today, things are much better. Long ignored infrastructure repaired, education for all, children being fed, and on and on. Insurgents (other Arabs) are still killing their own, as they were when Saddam was in office. But this speaks directly, and logically to some of the reasons for invasion. Namely power. The minority totalitarian facist regime in Iraq, and Al Queda, who have displayed so much lack of respect for human life, do not even have respect for other Muslim's lives. They are trying to regain power, in the same ways in which they governed, and in the case of Al Queda, wish to govern. Through destruction, terror, killing. Just look at the roadmap laid down by the Taliban to get an idea of what many power hungry Muslims want for government.
Now, if regime change in Iraq, by force, was wrong, then there should be a major UN inquiry, and perhaps a trial at the Hague. People and governments should be investigated. And if this regime change was wrong, then the previous government of Iraq should be reinstalled, and those that removed him punished. Bush, Blair, Howard, et al, should be called on the carpet. That is logical.
To say that regime change through force was wrong, and yet not call for righting the wrong, is illogical.
Of course, the above named leaders could have been rejected by their constituents, but they were returned to office.
As far as fighting the insurgents, Al Queda, etc, in the middle east reducing the threat at home, this is an age old, tried and true tactic. When you attack a threat at it's source, the tendency is that the opponent will fall back into a defensive mode, and drop it's offensive goals. This has been true throughout history, and is proving true in fighting terrorism. Let's hope that it remains true.
Be warned that the moment offensive actions are stopped, for whatever reason, Al Queda, etc, will begin to shift back to an offensive posture. Cover your head. As Bush said, this is a generational conflict. It may be decades before the thought processes that generated Al Queda, Wahhabism, etc, are changed enough to allow for true peace. Until that time, I hope the west remains on the offensive.
As far as intel goes, going to the source of the problems, the middle east, has provided a ton of intel. Much more than we could ever have hoped for staying at arms length.
>How can the Iraqi people see the U.S. backed government and the U.S. as a savior?<
That will truly occur only after the final result can be judged. Anything else is just a snapshot in time. But since the candidates semi-backed by the US lost in the elections, I don't think the Iraqis believe this is a puppet US backed government. The US backs the Iraqi goverment because they are the government the people of Iraq elected. So far, they are working well. And things are absolutely getting better on a measureable, daily basis. The areas not affected by the insurgents, outside of the Sunni triangle, are doing amazingly well. It appears that every unbiased appraisal of what is happening in the daily lives of Iraqis is positive.
As to the rest of your last paragraph, the US will probably leave Iraq much sooner than most think possible. At least the vast majority of our troops will leave. At any time, the Iraqi government can ask that we leave, and as the administration has consistantly said, we will leave. At some point, whether the Iraqis wish it or not, we will leave, because our presence will cause more problems than it solves. But first, obviously the Iraqis must be able to protect themselves, and become more effective in fighting the insurgents.
As of now, the insurgents are essentially only killing Iraqis. Whether we are there or not, freedom loving Iraqis will have to fight the power hungry minorities that are there now.
This is perhaps the biggest sin of the US and other coalition members that I see. By confronting the people with this mindset, we have unleashed them on the Iraqis. It seems they feel that by killing Iraqis, it will further their cause, by "teaching the peaceful a lesson". I believe they are wrong, and that the peace loving Muslims of the area are becoming more and more tired of the lesson. Is this not the exact meaning of freedom? Freedom has never been cheap, much less free. And for Iraq to be a truly free, democratic country, it will cost many more lives. As history has shown, success in striving for freedom will have wonderful benefits for Iraq.
Iraq could be sheep, willing to subsist under the thumb of the tyrants. But I believe as with others in the world, they will choose the freedom they are now offered.
As for the other world threats, it is surely possible that force will be needed to reduce or eliminate them. This is nothing new. I am heartened by the actions, and demonstrations by other middle eastern countries. Libya is changing. The people of Iran, especially the young, are growing very tired of the Mullahs. It appears that Iran may well implode, the citizens rise up, and force be a non-issue. SA, as the home of Wahhabism, is becoming more and more democratic, as are other countries in the region.
North Korea is a huge problem, in that Kim is a lunatic. Clinton royaly fucked up the situation by trusting a madman to stick to his word. But he is now calling for the resumption of six party talks. It appears that he is a talker, a posturer, and not a fighter. Let's hope so.
But the fact remains, he has NOT attacked outside parties, either locally or in the world, or even taken an offensive posture. He probably does have nukes, but does that make him a greater threat than Saddam had PROVEN to be through his actions?
Kim knows that if he ever used his nukes, he would surely die a quick death, and his country would be destroyed. He does not want to use them, except as a negotiating chip for power and monetary gains.
Saddam on the other hand, already had the monetary power to do as he wished. Which was to become the head of a Pan Islamic state. Same as Bin Laden by the way. He had already proven that he would produce, and even use lesser WMDs for his own advancement.
So what is the greater threat, a guy that will not use his weapons, leading to his destruction? Or a guy that has proven he will use his weapons? Which is more logical?
I have no doubt that the countries of the middle east, and indeed the world, could all be peaceful democratic entities. But it will take time, and yes, lives. In the end, that will be the ONLY opportunity to have true peace; when the minds of the peaceful majority of the world, have the same import as the power hungry, minority, armed, evil people of the world. Sad but essential, it will take other peace loving, well armed democracies to level the playing field, and give a chance of success and freedom to the peace loving people. And that is simply a fact. But at the same time, success will mean the chance of another 9/11 ever occuring will be much more remote.
Of course, if democracy becomes universal, it will be essential that population control also become universal. If not, diminishing resources will cause more war, even between democracies. But that is another subject, and problem, for the hopeful future.
Sorry for the long post.
Bigger
- Joined
- May 8, 2004
- Messages
- 2,151
It was a good post. Don't apologize. I however do believe that we were lied to and the intent was a bit less innocent than most would believe. There is something of note that John Conyers and many others are taking part in right now about the very decisions and intent prior to the invasion. It should be the number one story right now, but I don't know if it is. CNN.com doesn't look like they care much about it. Their headline right now is about Ford automobiles while the Downing Street hearings that are going on right now are 4th in a link to the side. Priorities are not in order. This deserves more attention than the Jackson trial. I hate to say it but if the Jackson trial was going on still the hearings might not get mentioned. At least you can watch it on CNN.com though. I do not see it on Foxnews.com either. I think the same would hold true for television as well. It's almost over though so maybe there will be more on it in a few days. I doubt it.
I've said the same about Kim on here as well. I think he has nuclear weapons, but is only using that possibility of a threat to barter with. Saddam hasn't had any WMDs since the early 90s though. I think the UN inspections worked. I feel like if a guy who was the CEO of a pharmaceutical company sells biological and chemical materials to a country that just used bio and chemical weapons on a country who ends up being the Sec. of Defense (Rumsfeld) of the country that eventually accuses them of being an evil regime and invades on the premise of self defense along with referring to history of human rights cruelty that it assisted in is pretty fucked. It doesn't make any difference if you see nothing wrong with that. You should see something wrong with that. It is clear that no WMDs have been found, which was the key to this whole invasion. There is strong evidence in real documents that suggest the invasion was to act as a coup, which you've acknowledged and is pretty widely known that it was Bush and company who believed it was necessary for a regime change in Iraq. There is strong evidence that suggests the administration had planned invade Iraq for at least 3 years prior to the 2003 invasion, that the information was manipulated in that Iraq was less of a threat than several other countries, Saddam's terrorist links were not even close to provable.
PNAC should ring a bell when it comes to Iraq and considering the people involved with that organization it should be alarming that people with that mentality are in such positions of influence that are strategic and elemental to the American policies they wanted to control in an imperialist way.
War is always going to be here. Sanitary drinking water is the next thing to be fought over globally probably, but yes I think it'd be a little too much to ask for anyone here to put up with a debate over future war.
On another note, I didn't mean that the Iraq government was a puppet regime, as I would have only speculation on my side, but I was saying the Iraqis see the violence occurring everyday and they know it's because the U.S. is there. What are they supposed to believe in a time of hopelessness? This invasion will only result with more terrorism years down the road, but the only thing I can hope for realistically is the people will see that it was our foreign policy that has contributed greatly to this terrorism.
I've said the same about Kim on here as well. I think he has nuclear weapons, but is only using that possibility of a threat to barter with. Saddam hasn't had any WMDs since the early 90s though. I think the UN inspections worked. I feel like if a guy who was the CEO of a pharmaceutical company sells biological and chemical materials to a country that just used bio and chemical weapons on a country who ends up being the Sec. of Defense (Rumsfeld) of the country that eventually accuses them of being an evil regime and invades on the premise of self defense along with referring to history of human rights cruelty that it assisted in is pretty fucked. It doesn't make any difference if you see nothing wrong with that. You should see something wrong with that. It is clear that no WMDs have been found, which was the key to this whole invasion. There is strong evidence in real documents that suggest the invasion was to act as a coup, which you've acknowledged and is pretty widely known that it was Bush and company who believed it was necessary for a regime change in Iraq. There is strong evidence that suggests the administration had planned invade Iraq for at least 3 years prior to the 2003 invasion, that the information was manipulated in that Iraq was less of a threat than several other countries, Saddam's terrorist links were not even close to provable.
PNAC should ring a bell when it comes to Iraq and considering the people involved with that organization it should be alarming that people with that mentality are in such positions of influence that are strategic and elemental to the American policies they wanted to control in an imperialist way.
War is always going to be here. Sanitary drinking water is the next thing to be fought over globally probably, but yes I think it'd be a little too much to ask for anyone here to put up with a debate over future war.
On another note, I didn't mean that the Iraq government was a puppet regime, as I would have only speculation on my side, but I was saying the Iraqis see the violence occurring everyday and they know it's because the U.S. is there. What are they supposed to believe in a time of hopelessness? This invasion will only result with more terrorism years down the road, but the only thing I can hope for realistically is the people will see that it was our foreign policy that has contributed greatly to this terrorism.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2005
- Messages
- 209
Bib said:
I am old and I know everything.
