Do Not Stop President Bush

[eric]

Let the UN do what they do best, provide condoms to african nations !

 

[jon_forward]

Originally posted by eric
Let the UN do what they do best, provide condoms to african nations !

 

[st8_o_mind]

That is a lot to respond to.

I was originally responding to jimnyc who claimed that the reason we invaded Iraq was to enforce the UN sanctions. Jon wrote that the reason we went to war was regime change. I wish you guys who support the war could agree on why it is being fought. Clearly you all don’t think much of the UN so enforcing a UN resolution would seem a poor reason for the US to fight a war. Fighting a war without UN approval, without UN forces, without UN financial support and saying we’re doing it in support of the UN resolutions does not pass any test of logic.

It seems to me that Jon is right saying the goal was regime change.

Regarding your question Eric, no I don’t think the US should not respond to other threats until Osama is captured or killed. But one, I do not think Iraq represented an immediate threat to the US whereas Al-Qaeda clearly does. First things first as my father used to say. Second, I agree with what Clark and many others have said before him…that the war with Iraq has undermined our ability to fight the war against terrorists.

Finally, I don’t know what YHO is but threatening to sick your big brother on me to “set me straight” is a bit silly, don’t you think?

 

[jon_forward]

Finally, I don’t know what YHO is but threatening to sick your big brother on me to “set me straight” is a bit silly, don’t you think?

your humble opinion=YHO.... It wasnt my intent to sick my twin bro on you. as you stated you were over there, you should know what the military reason was. as it seems your slant was different it must have been your opinion. simple as that. AS for the UN, if they are going to make resolutions, someone has to enforce them. what if he did have WMD, or was close to going nuclear? have us wait till a whole country is blown to hell before we take action? I think not! Why do you think Libya is coming clean? they thought they were next.

 

[Robert111]

china,north korea ,many south east asian and african countries have and are still practicing the same if not worse injustices as iraq. But then ofcourse the countries that are so weak and have no oil are hardly worth any self interest to this administration. China and north korea with alittle help from some other of brutal southeast asian countries could kick are cocky butts if messed with. bush has done little but stir up the honets nest , And no president will ever stomp out the terrorist . there can only be compromise to become more civilized , Are egos and are greed will be are downfall , We have learned nothing from history, I take that back, the leaders of our countries need to think faster and then think of what they thought of much slower with options. HEY WE CAN ALWAYS GO DRILL OIL IN OUR NATIONAL PARKS AND REALLY RAISE THE PRICES MAN I WISH I HAD THE MONEY TO BUY GAS AND OIL STOCK , OOOOO BUT THE OIL COMPANIES HAVE BEEN LIVING TO LEAN DICK CHENNY , YOUR FIRST NAME IS SO ON TARGET..........

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by st8_o_mind
You remind me of that expression: Yes, but other than that Mrs. Lincoln, how did you like the play?.” Iraq did not attack the US. Saddam is in jail, Osama is planning his next bombing.

Iraq ignored resolutions for 12 years. Saddam is where he belongs. I'd like to see your proof of what Osama is doing.

That is a bit condescending. Actually I’ve been to Iraq. Haw you?

No, I "hawen't". And that doesn't mean shit! You still obviously haven't read the resolutions, or you fail to comprehend them. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and go with the latter.

That is simply not true. There was no vote in the UN to authorize the war, or the “enforcement mechanism.” The majority of the Security Council, particularly the non-aligned states led by Mexico (who had neither a veto nor contracts with Iraq) argued that the inspectors should be given more time to complete their work. President Bush, in a nationally televised address promised to seek a war resolution say at the time that the countries should “show their cards.” But when it became clear that Bush would lose the vote, the resolution was dropped.

Like I said, it's all about the comprehension! Try actually reading them next time. From reolution 1441:

Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to Resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area

13. Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations

If Iraq refused to comply, where are the WMD? Which resolution was enforced by the invasion of Iraq?

Long range missiles, full disclosure/failure to fully comply, hostile acts against planes in no fly zone, returning bodies and property to Kuwait, oppressing their people... That's just off the top of my head.

Another American was killed in Iraq yesterday. It is not the end of anything. A lot of American kids are paying with their lives and limbs to fight a war against a country those posed no immanent threat the US, meanwhile, Al-Quaeda lives on.

And nobody ever stated they were an IMMINENT threat to the US. Saddam was a huge threat to the entire world if left unattended. He is no longer a problem. Al Qaeda is still functioning, but they have been severely hurt. The war on terrorism is just over a year old and hundreds of terrorists have been captured and/or killed and hundreds of terrorist plots have been foiled.

End of Story.

And yours was a nice little story, too bad it was all fiction.

 

[Hobbit]

How's this for a good reason? I don't see anybody up in arms about us eliminating the Taliban after they refused to let us have bin Laden, and that was only a few months after 9/11. It took an entire decade for us to go into Iraq after they harbored a terrorist who had a hand in the 1993 WTC bombing.

As for you having been to Iraq, big deal. I have a half-Iraqi friend who would have been there to visit her relatives had she been allowed to by this dictatorial nutbag. She's glad Saddam's out, since she can now speak to her grandparents for the first time in ages, if not the first time ever.

 

[st8_o_mind]

Originally posted by jon_forward
Finally, I don’t know what YHO is but threatening to sick your big brother on me to “set me straight” is a bit silly, don’t you think?

your humble opinion=YHO.... It wasnt my intent to sick my twin bro on you. as you stated you were over there, you should know what the military reason was. as it seems your slant was different it must have been your opinion. simple as that. AS for the UN, if they are going to make resolutions, someone has to enforce them. what if he did have WMD, or was close to going nuclear? have us wait till a whole country is blown to hell before we take action? I think not! Why do you think Libya is coming clean? they thought they were next.

Clark was the only guest on Meet the Press today. He addressed some of your questions. I’ll let him speak for himself on that. I do think that it is relevant that during his testimony Clark took responsibility for some of his failures and apologized to the families of the victims. Here in Washington, it is unusual for anyone to take responsibility for what he/she did or did not do and apologize. Clark was asked by Russet if he thought Clinton and Bush should apologize. Clark said that was up to them.

 

[st8_o_mind]

Originally posted by jon_forward
Finally, I don’t know what YHO is but threatening to sick your big brother on me to “set me straight” is a bit silly, don’t you think?

your humble opinion=YHO.... It wasnt my intent to sick my twin bro on you. as you stated you were over there, you should know what the military reason was. as it seems your slant was different it must have been your opinion. simple as that. AS for the UN, if they are going to make resolutions, someone has to enforce them. what if he did have WMD, or was close to going nuclear? have us wait till a whole country is blown to hell before we take action? I think not! Why do you think Libya is coming clean? they thought they were next.

Oops, I pasted the wrong comments.

Well Jon, regarding Libya, the jury is still out. While some make the case that invading Iraq led to libya’s disarmament, others point to the same “evidence” and say that Libya proves that diplomacy works. I suspect that there is truth in both camps. Hans Blix said that the weapons inspectors were effective in disarming Iraq but that it was the threat of force that allowed the inspectors to go back into Iraq and have access to any sites in the country they wanted to see.

You wrote that someone has to enforce the resolutions of the UN. I have several problems with that, mostly that thee US military does not work for the UN nor should they.

But more to the point, we did not go to war over a resolution. The reasons the Bush Administration gave for the war varied over time, but in a nutshell they were Iraq had or was close to have biological, chemical and nuclear weapons, Iraq was linked to the terrorist attacks on 9/11 (specifically the alleged meeting between m. atta and Iraqi intelligence officers) or that the US was going to bring democracy to Iraq which would spread throughout the middle east. Well, we now know that their were no WMD, nor did Iraq “reconstitute” their capacity to manufacture them, there was no atta meeting in the Czech Republic and the US placed a hand-picked governing council for Iraq and opposes direct elections for fear that the Shea will win leading to an Islamic theocracy on the lines of their allies Iran, plus a bloodbath as the Sunni and Kurds fight back. What a mess.

So, No WMD, no Democracy, no connection to Al-Quaida. Either there was a massive failure of US (and British) intelligence and we went to war because of a series of mistakes as some now believe, or the Bush Administration lied as other believe.

That’s my two cents.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by st8_o_mind
But more to the point, we did not go to war over a resolution. The reasons the Bush Administration gave for the war varied over time, but in a nutshell they were Iraq had or was close to have biological, chemical and nuclear weapons, Iraq was linked to the terrorist attacks on 9/11 (specifically the alleged meeting between m. atta and Iraqi intelligence officers) or that the US was going to bring democracy to Iraq which would spread throughout the middle east.

The reasons varied over time because there were so many reasons. Depending on the questions you might have received varying answers.

The resolutions WERE the reasons for going to war, and WMD were part of those resolutions.

 

[jon_forward]

"You wrote that someone has to enforce the resolutions of the UN. I have several problems with that, mostly that thee US military does not work for the UN nor should they." quoted from st8..

If the USofA doesnt uphold the resolutions, who will? the answer, no one! saddam had the un in his back pocket. france, germany and russia, that we know of to this point were making millions off of saddam. and also breaking the spirit of "oil for food" program. why should he have to answer to anyone with these countrys in his corner?

as I have stated, my bro, who has 29 years in the corps has said[and I believe posted it on this board] the MAIN reason they were over there was reguuime change. the #1 reason they were there was to remove saddam from power. WMD were secondary.
a connection to terrorism is enough in my book. and BTW.. a belated welcome to the board!!!

 

[st8_o_mind]

Originally posted by jimnyc

And nobody ever stated they were an IMMINENT threat to the US..... [/B]

Well, that one is easy. Attached is a link to Secretary Remmy saying just that.

http://www.moveon.org/censure/caughtonvideo/

Now, let's see what else you had wrong. Hmmm.

Your posting of 1441 is not relevant. I am sure everyone who posts to these boards remembers the intense diplomatic efforts on the part of the Bush Administration to secure passage of a resolution authorizing war in the security council. That resolution was withdrawn by Bush when it became clear the resolution would fail. Posting the previous resolution, which Powell promoted in the UN as a way to AVOID armed conflict, then ignoring the subsequent massive diplomatic effort to pass a war resolution as if it did not happen just to support your belief that 1441 was a war resolution is a farce

Originally posted by jimnyc
Long range missiles, full disclosure/failure to fully comply, hostile acts against planes in no fly zone, returning bodies and property to Kuwait, oppressing their people... That's just off the top of my head. [/B]

wrong again. Iraq did not have long range missiles. They were allowed under the terms of the cease fire to have short range missiles with a range up to, if I remember 300km. Hans Blix's team felt some had been modified to slightly exceed that limit, the Iraqi's said that when the warhead was added, the weight limited the range to less than 300 km. It does not matter if the range was 290 km or 310 km, it was a technical issue and not ever the basis take the country to war.

full/disclosure/failure to comply I imagine refers to the NON-EXISTENT WMD.l Next.

hostile acts against plans....When we drop 500 pound bombs on people sometimes they shoot back! Surprise!

Not returning bodies/property to Kuwait...PAH-LEASE. Do you really think we spent 150 billion dollars to return less than one billion dollars in loot to kuwait?

 

[st8_o_mind]

Originally posted by jon_forward
"
...as I have stated, my bro, who has 29 years in the corps has said[and I believe posted it on this board] the MAIN reason they were over there was reguuime change. the #1 reason they were there was to remove saddam from power. WMD were secondary.
a connection to terrorism is enough in my book. and BTW.. a belated welcome to the board!!!

Thank's for the welcome. Perhaps the only thing that every single person who reads these boards will agree on is that we all wish your brother, and all the men and women in the Uniformed Services, a safe return to their families.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by st8_o_mind
Well, that one is easy. Attached is a link to Secretary Remmy saying just that.

http://www.moveon.org/censure/caughtonvideo/

I guess it wasn't as easy as you assumed. NOWHERE in that video does he state Iraq was an imminent threat.

Now, let's see what else you had wrong. Hmmm.

Your posting of 1441 is not relevant. I am sure everyone who posts to these boards remembers the intense diplomatic efforts on the part of the Bush Administration to secure passage of a resolution authorizing war in the security council. That resolution was withdrawn by Bush when it became clear the resolution would fail. Posting the previous resolution, which Powell promoted in the UN as a way to AVOID armed conflict, then ignoring the subsequent massive diplomatic effort to pass a war resolution as if it did not happen just to support your belief that 1441 was a war resolution is a farce

ALL the resolutions are VERY relevant. It was Iraq's defiance of those resolutions that lead up to this entire thing. Yes, Bush yanked the resolution off the table when a few countries vowed to veto it without even reading it. Kind of funny that these very same countries were found to have shady activities going on with Saddam.

I never said 1441 OR 687 was a war resolution, you dingleberry! You seriously have comprehension issues.

wrong again. Iraq did not have long range missiles. They were allowed under the terms of the cease fire to have short range missiles with a range up to, if I remember 300km. Hans Blix's team felt some had been modified to slightly exceed that limit, the Iraqi's said that when the warhead was added, the weight limited the range to less than 300 km. It does not matter if the range was 290 km or 310 km, it was a technical issue and not ever the basis take the country to war.

Looks like you're out of the loop again!
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/842301/posts

Bottom line, they were in breach.

full/disclosure/failure to comply I imagine refers to the NON-EXISTENT WMD.l Next.

Stop imagining, it makes you look foolish. It was referring to the resolutions as a whole.

hostile acts against plans....When we drop 500 pound bombs on people sometimes they shoot back! Surprise!

Here we are back to the comprehension again. Nobody was dropping anything. Iraq was shooting at our planes that were securing the no fly zones. Nothing was done by the US until they were fired upon. Another breach, and another one wrong for you!

Not returning bodies/property to Kuwait...PAH-LEASE. Do you really think we spent 150 billion dollars to return less than one billion dollars in loot to kuwait?

Just another breach added to the list. Add them all up and you have a recipe for necessary force to make them comply.

 

[OCA]

State don't you think thats a cop out? I mean you wish them well and thats all fine and good but you monday morning quarterback everything the decision makers do which I assume means you don't wish them well, or maybe i'm reading your posts wrong.

My take on all this is we the little people will never know all the reasons our government does what it does and maybe its better that way. I prefer to trust our leaders for better or worse or disasterous in the case of Bubba. AT LEAST, MY GOD AT LEAST BUSH IS DOING SOMETHING other than playing tiddlywinks with these people. They basically had the bulk of the 90's to run around unencumbered but no longer can do that thanks to Bush. I think we can all agree on that.

 

[eric]

Regarding your question Eric, no I don’t think the US should not respond to other threats until Osama is captured or killed. But one, I do not think Iraq represented an immediate threat to the US whereas Al-Qaeda clearly does. First things first as my father used to say. Second, I agree with what Clark and many others have said before him…that the war with Iraq has undermined our ability to fight the war against terrorists

Well, I think at this point how much of a threat Iraq was is nothing more than speculation. I tend to judge future actions of men based on their past, their motivations, and their aspirations. Now if we look at Saddam we see he used chemical weapons, he hates the US and I am sure would love some payback for '91, and we all know his aspirations. To me this makes him a dangerous and unstable force in that region, as well as everywhere else in the world. Even though no direct ties to Bin Laden have been proven, I would say it is fair to assume he might just know a few people in the terror scene, wouldn't you agree ?

As far as Iraq taking away from our war on terror, I just don't buy it. Foreign policy and military action can not be on first things first basis. If we only focused on one front at a time in WWII, we would have lost for sure. I can not even imagine running my company on that basis !

 

[st8_o_mind]

Originally posted by jimnyc
Nothing was done by the US until they were fired upon. Another breach, and another one wrong for you!

Ack! Geez pal, these are serious issues we are discussing, and you just make up whatever nonsense you like if it supports your thesis. The rules of engagement for allied aircraft patrolling either the southern or northern no fly zone did not require them to wait until fired upon.

Some of the missions were offensive, to target military assets of the Iraqi regime.

But to your point that allied pilots waited to be fired upon is 100% wrong. If a US aircraft was "painted" by Iraqi radar, they fired. That's the whole idea. Either the Iraqi's could then turn off the radar and not be able to target their weapon or they would eat the radar guided missile fired by the coalition aircraft.

Where do you come up with this nonesense?

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by st8_o_mind
Ack! Geez pal, these are serious issues we are discussing, and you just make up whatever nonsense you like if it supports your thesis. The rules of engagement for allied aircraft patrolling either the southern or northern no fly zone did not require them to wait until fired upon.

Some of the missions were offensive, to target military assets of the Iraqi regime.

But to your point that allied pilots waited to be fired upon is 100% wrong. If a US aircraft was "painted" by Iraqi radar, they fired. That's the whole idea. Either the Iraqi's could then turn off the radar and not be able to target their weapon or they would eat the radar guided missile fired by the coalition aircraft.

Where do you come up with this nonesense?

I am afraid discussing anything with you and your comprehension level is a fruitless effort.

The no fly zones were intact since 1991. There were MANY times that Iraqi soldiers fired upon our planes for no reason at all.

Here's an example:
http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Daily/Day/000228/2000022803.html

"Iraqi anti-aircraft artillery located west of Bashiqah fired today on aircraft enforcing the "no-fly zone" over northern Iraq, the US European Command said. It said the aircraft "responded to the Iraqi attacks by dropping ordnance on elements of the Iraqi integrated air defense system."

Do you notice the part about RESPONDED? That means they dropped their bombs AFTER they were fired upon. Not hard to comprehend, is it?

Here's one that explains their firing on our planes and how it pertains to the resolutions:
http://www.sptimes.com/2002/11/16/Worldandnation/Iraq_fires_on_allied_.shtml

WASHINGTON -- Iraq fired on U.S. and British warplanes patrolling a no-fly zone Friday, an act the United States considers a breach of a U.N. Security Council resolution, officials said. Coalition warplanes bombed an Iraqi air defense site in retaliation.

You call it nonsense, I call it comprehending the facts.

 

[OCA]

And the problem with eating the radar guided missle is? Was Sadaam that stupid to have taken a complete ass whipping in Gulf I and still try and thumb his nose at us? Personally I don't have any problem with that, one of the only good things that Bubba did during his "rambunctious" tenure.

What is your political philosophy? Are you a pacifist? Do you believe diplomacy alone despite all its failings in this situation would've gotten the job done? I think there are few tens of thousands of dead Iraqi political prisoners who would like to argue that diplomacy point.

 

[st8_o_mind]

Originally posted by OCA
State don't you think thats a cop out? I mean you wish them well and thats all fine and good but you monday morning quarterback everything the decision makers do which I assume means you don't wish them well, or maybe i'm reading your posts wrong.
.

Slow down pardner. If by "assume you don't wish them well" you are writing about US soldiers, you are wrong. I do indeed wish them well. I don't think that is a cop out. Not at all. Also I do not wish the President or any of his war cabinet any harm other than to be put out of office in the next election for being the lying scum that they are.