Now I am confused

Discussion in 'Middle East - General' started by CSM, Oct 12, 2004.

  1. CSM
    Offline

    CSM Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2004
    Messages:
    6,907
    Thanks Received:
    708
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Northeast US
    Ratings:
    +708
    Were there weapons of mass destruction or not? The UN says no but now some of the materials for making nukes is missing from Iraq.

    Nuclear items missing in Iraq

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1325365,00.html

    If they weren't a concern when Hussein had them, why are they a concern now?
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  2. White knight
    Online

    White knight Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    They only real reason this issue is coming up again is because it election time. It helps to create a situation of who is better to protect America, and to deflect some of criticisms away from the president. It’s all part of the Political Spin Machine.

    I honestly get a kick out of people who still think WMD and possible terrorist links were our reasons for going to war with Iraq, And that the president lied or tricked us into war.

    There are these concepts like long term strategic planning and national interest. Most Americans know nothing or could care less about, probably to busy watching The Apprentice or running the kids around.

    If the President had said America is going to war for our long-term national interest, do you think the American public or the rest of the liberal world would have supported the decision? Just as an example if the real reason’s to go to war were to create an example of democracy in a region that is very authoritarian and extreme, in order to put a end to the cycle of terror. Or to secure our future energy reserves, or even to have a hand on the energy valve of growing industrialized nations (China, India) who had the potential to become a superpower dwarfing the United States. Do you think the public would have supported that?
    No honest peace loving American in their right mind, worthy of democracy would support their nation to be an aggressor in the world, solely for our own national interest.

    Our Government does not have a history of going to War with other nations under questionable circumstances even though in the long run it turned out to be the right thing to do. We just do not operate that way.

    I support the people behind our bumbling, dim witted, passionate little president.
    They are a good team in position to do the right things for our nation even if it will be a hard and painful process. Nothing worthy of achieving is ever easy.
     
  3. CSM
    Offline

    CSM Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2004
    Messages:
    6,907
    Thanks Received:
    708
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Northeast US
    Ratings:
    +708
    I agree that the war in Iraq had more to do with long term startegy than anything else. I also beleive that national interests are as good a reason to go to war as any; in fact, I can think of few better reasons.

    The United States has waged war in the past under questionable circumstances (Mexico; Viet Nam to name a couple).

    I do not agree that the president is bumbling and dim witted.
     
  4. Merlin1047
    Offline

    Merlin1047 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2004
    Messages:
    3,500
    Thanks Received:
    449
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    AL
    Ratings:
    +450
    I'd be careful about "misunderestimating" GW. Kerry came into the last debate with that attitude and George pretty much cut him off at the knees.
     
  5. Merlin1047
    Offline

    Merlin1047 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2004
    Messages:
    3,500
    Thanks Received:
    449
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    AL
    Ratings:
    +450
    DK put it very eloquently and succinctly in a post he entered a few days ago. (I apologize to KD for massaging DK's ego, but it's true.)

    To me, the bottom line is that we needed to attack somebody in order to provide a warning to terrorist supporting nations throughout the world. Kicking Saddam's butt was the most logical choice. He was a sadistic murderer who repeatedly attacked his neighbors to sate his lust for empire. Attacking Iraq raised the least amount of ire among moslem nations and served as an object lesson to Libya, Syria, Iran, N. Korea etc etc.

    A side benefit was that we pissed off the French and exposed them once and for all as the anti-American snail suckers that they truly are. Even better that we have exposed them as the greedy, underhanded, corrupt facilitators of Saddam's brutal regime.
     
  6. Commy
    Offline

    Commy Rookie

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2004
    Messages:
    6
    Thanks Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    1
    Ratings:
    +0
    I'm new here, in fact this is my first post. And so far a few things have caught my attention. One, nobody seems to mind the tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians that have been killed, as a result of the occupation. Two, everybody seems to think that invasion and occupation are required for regime change.
    As to the first, what the hell are we fighting for if ten thousand people have to die in the process? What just cause is worth that sacrafice? (and the actual figures of civilian casualties are ten times that, a 100 times that if we go back to '91) And you wonder why there's a resistance. Wakeup people.
    As to the second, Saddam's regime was very limited politically when the invasion came, he had little power. He was on his way out anyway. And it is necessary to remember that he used to be our close ally, notably during his worst atrocities. In fact, the weapons used to kill hundreds of thousands of his people came from US companies. But suddenly he's a threat to the world and and needs to be dealt with? Can you say 'pretext'? Can you say oil? Can you say imperialism?
     
  7. jimnyc
    Offline

    jimnyc ...

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2003
    Messages:
    10,113
    Thanks Received:
    244
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    New York
    Ratings:
    +246
    Oh brother! Here we go again! :tinfoil:

    Can you please supply us with all the facts showing how this is related in any way to oil? Why the prices are so high? And don't feed me that baloney about "it's in the pockets of the CEO's of the oil companies". Give us cold hard FACTS.
     
  8. Commy
    Offline

    Commy Rookie

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2004
    Messages:
    6
    Thanks Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    1
    Ratings:
    +0
    Hah. You've had this debate before I take it.
    The facts are in NSC 68, de-classified some time ago. It has been a major goal of the powers that be for some time now to gain a military foothold, and thus access to the vast resources, in the middle east. They said so, 'they' being the US government. 1991 gave them military access to the middle east, and thus a hand in the politics of the region. But this latest venture has given them direct access to the oil, the ultimate goal.
    I suggest you read NSC 68, and hear it straight from the policy planners.
     
  9. Commy
    Offline

    Commy Rookie

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2004
    Messages:
    6
    Thanks Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    1
    Ratings:
    +0
    So what's up Jimmy? You got your facts. Do you have an opinion on this or do you just like to ask a lot of questions?
     
  10. jimnyc
    Offline

    jimnyc ...

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2003
    Messages:
    10,113
    Thanks Received:
    244
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    New York
    Ratings:
    +246
    Doesn't look like facts to me. Provide links directly to your proof where it shows the Iraq war is about oil. I'll read it and post what I think. I've read hundreds of this kind of crap before and we all got a good laugh at destroying the so called 'evidence', which are nothing more than conspiracy theories.
     

Share This Page