War is nver a credible venue unless one is attacked. Iraq proves it!!!

[Psychoblues]

Although the peoples of Afganistan never meant any war towards the US, their general populace accept us as an occupational force and understand that the Al Queda was our primary adversary and that the Taliban encouraged that adversarial relationship. Although we still have troops dying in Afganistan it is politely understood. Iraq, on the other hand, is not even comparable or understood.

Iraq never had a Taliban or any organization of such religious zealotry that would compare to the Taliban. Iraq was and is a country that would rather do without all the political favoritisms of the US and be left to work out their territorial and religious differences amongst themselves. For most practical purposes, their territorial differences are small and in no way violent. Their religious differences are similar to the protestant/catholic skirmishes that develope right here in the USA. I know, I've been there.

We don't hear much about the soldiers that we lose in Afganistan nowadays. We hear a lot about the Iraqi deployment KIA's and others. Iraq presents a trmendous economic advantage to the US while Afganistan is not yet so much of a potentially exploitable resourse of labor or mineral source of wealth. I wonder if the connection that I make is accurate?

 

[jimnyc]

Saddam and regime needed to be removed from power. Force was necessary to achieve this goal. I think the connection you are trying to make is hogwash. Your entitled to your viewpoint though.

 

[Psychoblues]

OK, jimnyc, I can grasp your very simple analogy but can you explain the other 20 or 30 dictatorships within the last twenty or thirty years that also demostrated ill will towards western and in particular US interventionism where we made no effort to quell their threats yet allowed them to murder millions of their own (on edit: including a few of OUR OWN?)? I don't anticipate any comparative or credible answer from you.

 

[William Joyce]

I'm not so sure about this "he needed to be removed from power" business. That's awful damn arrogant. So, if China decides that our government "needs to be removed," they can bomb us into oblivion? Just on a whim?

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by Psychoblues
I don't anticipate any comparative or credible answer from you.

You know, I was fine up until this part and was prepared to continue the dialogue with you. You aren't worth my time.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by William Joyce
I'm not so sure about this "he needed to be removed from power" business. That's awful damn arrogant. So, if China decides that our government "needs to be removed," they can bomb us into oblivion? Just on a whim?

What happened in Iraq was certainly not on a whim. That was over a decade in failed negotiations and breeched reolutions. I would expect someone to step in against our government has they done the same.

Call it arrogant if you like, but it worked. Saddam is history and the world is better off without his type around.

So let's hear your opinion, should Saddam have remained in power? What steps should have been taken?

 

[jones]

Originally posted by jimnyc
Force was necessary to achieve this goal.

Force should ALWAYS be used as last resort. Now that we are stuck in Iraq, it sure as hell has not been proven that we needed to goto war.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by jones
Force should ALWAYS be used as last resort. Now that we are stuck in Iraq, it sure as hell has not been proven that we needed to goto war.

I'd say that after 12 years of sanctions, breached resolutions, failed negotiations and Saddam's cat n mouse games - it's fair to say they tried every means possible to come to a peaceful resolution. Saddam dictated the outcome with his failure to cooperate as was indicated in prior resolutions.

 

[jones]

Very, veeery last resort.

Pre-emptive war will always be unconstitutional. And it still HAS NOT been proven that we needed to goto war. Sure the negotiations failed but they worked in some respect, he didn't try to take over the world, just dictating his little country like many others, we just happen to pay attention to this state a bit more than others, wouldnt u think?

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by jones
Very, veeery last resort.

Pre-emptive war will always be unconstitutional. And it still HAS NOT been proven that we needed to goto war. Sure the negotiations failed but they worked in some respect, he didn't try to take over the world, just dictating his little country like many others, we just happen to pay attention to this state a bit more than others, wouldnt u think?

Was there someone else we have been in failed negotiations with for the past 12 years that has breached UN resolutions? And was this country responsible for oppression of their own people? And have they used WMD on their own people before? And was there proof that they were looking to acquire nukes? And have they fired scud missiles at their neighbors? Does this country have mass graves of the people killed at the hands of their leader?

 

[Moi]

Originally posted by jones
Force should ALWAYS be used as last resort.

Why?

Who are you to decide at what point is the last resort appropriate?

The only possible answer to those questions would be your OPINION. You are clearly entitled to your opinion and even to freely publicize your opinion. The only good thing here is that someone, other than you, had the power to actually act. Those people acted in an appropriate way. The point is completely moot as to whether we had a reason that each and every person in this country (and others) would agree was enough to go to war. Been there, done that. It's over.

Now, in order to make the cost of this war not in vain, we need to finish what we started in both countries and get these people to where they should be- under their own rule, without a sadistic dictator and on the road to a more democratic, free society.

So, if you have any helpful suggestions as to how to reach the goal at hand, please write your congressmen. Otherwise, stop bellyaching about a past which cannot be changed.

 

[Isaac Brock]

Originally posted by jimnyc
Was there someone else we have been in failed negotiations with for the past 12 years that has breached UN resolutions? And was this country responsible for oppression of their own people? And have they used WMD on their own people before? And was there proof that they were looking to acquire nukes? And have they fired scud missiles at their neighbors? Does this country have mass graves of the people killed at the hands of their leader?

Frankly I think the idea is that the invasion of Iraq has started a slippery slope. If the WMD argument is thrown out the window, which I think should, not because it necessarily there, but because there are so many examples of evil regimes with WMD, than I think Iraq was about liberation from Saddam.

So if Saddam, than Mugabe, Kim Jong Il, Khomeini, african dictators, myabe even China... My point is that there was many better, more imminent target than Iraq. I find it very hard to accept that Iraq was the greatest threat to US and world peace.

However I can accept the argument that sometime war is needed to maintain peace, to deny that is folly against history. However I do question its use in this case.

 

[nbdysfu]

I agree that there are many governments that are as much of a threat as SH was. However, the US had already been involved in prosecuting SH in the UN for 12 years or so. And China which IB mentions is on the opposite side of the spectrum in that regards.

The idea is not to go to war against the country of any dictator we feel like outing. It is to reinforce diplomacy by actually following through when diplomacy fails. Diplomacy appears to be working with Musharraf and Gaddhafi, with the added US resolve. If we had not gone to war with SH, we would have eventually been forced to lift the sanctions against SH because we would not have been able to prove that Saddam was abusing the sanctions. Consequently, our ability to use means other than war would have been significantly hampered by not going to war.

 

[Isaac Brock]

Originally posted by nbdysfu
I agree that there are many governments that are as much of a threat as SH was. However, the US had already been involved in prosecuting SH in the UN for 12 years or so. And China which IB mentions is on the opposite side of the spectrum in that regards.

The idea is not to go to war against the country of any dictator we feel like outing. It is to reinforce diplomacy by actually following through when diplomacy fails. Diplomacy appears to be working with Musharraf and Gaddhafi, with the added US resolve. If we had not gone to war with SH, we would have eventually been forced to lift the sanctions against SH because we would not have been able to prove that Saddam was abusing the sanctions. Consequently, our ability to use means other than war would have been significantly hampered by not going to war.

Fair enough about China but what about Mugabe and Kim Jong Il? I'd say diplomacy has been thrown out the window.... Mugabe has left the commonwealth and Kim Jong Il is playing games stalling in worse fashion than Saddam has ever done. If you guys decide to go after NK... I hope very much Canada goes with you.

 

[Ralph Wiggums]

You know, I was fine up until this part and was prepared to continue the dialogue with you. You aren't worth my time.

If this person really wasn't worth your time, then no response would have been the appropriate one. By responding/acknowledging them or their statements, you've negated any logic or legitimacy from your own statement that they are not worth your time, when they clearly are worth your time as you have proven by wasting said time in a response.

But I digress. The topic was (loosely) should Iraq have been the second priority in the war on terror. IMHO, no stone should have been left unturned until UBL was found, and the terrorist network that was KNOWN to have been behind 9/11 was rooted out and decimated. We should not have split our forces before Afghanistan was well on the road to nation wide democracy, not just a faux one in Kabul, leaving the rest of the country fractionated between clashing warlords. Again IMHO, the current Administration both overestimated our abilities, and underestimated the terrorists.

I tend to agree with those in this post that Iraq was not as imminent a threat as other nations were at the time, and still are today. As far as force being used as the last means, I also tend to agree, and so did Congress when they agreed to authorize the President to go to war, as the last means. Bush outlined his plan as using diplomacy, sanctions, and ultimately force if necessary to remove WMD from Iraq. Unfortunately he DID bypass the first two, claiming they had already gone that route, and opted for force as the only method of achieving his administrations goal from the early days of the administration (pre 9/11) as described by his former treasury secretary Paul O’Neil. This bypass flew in the face of what most members of Congress were led to believe would be the true course of the administration in the process of dealing with Iraq.

Then other main aspect of the authorization/resolution to go to war with Iraq that Bush failed on (as I mentioned before), is the war against al-Qaeda. As outlined in Congress’ authorization to go to war,

Bush also must certify that action against Iraq would not hinder efforts to pursue the al Qaeda terrorist network that attacked New York and Washington last year” (CNN-Friday, October 11, 2002 Posted: 12:35 PM EDT (1635 GMT)).

If we have not been hindered, how come we have caught a dictator that they still cannot prove was implicated in 9/11, and the original ’mastermind’ behind it is still at large, free to plan more terrorist acts, and continue to make connections with existing and emerging terrorist organizations to pass the torch onto should his reign come to and end?


These reasons are, IMHO, why Bush has failed our country. There was a chance to really develop working relationships with other nations to step-wise eliminate these terrorists. Instead he and his administration have (if I can borrow a catch-phrase) unilaterally squandered the good-will that was given by the world to the US after 9/11, on nothing more than a GOP agenda item to invade a country they had their sights set on from their first days in the White House.

 

[tim_duncan2000]

I'd say that after 12 years of sanctions, breached resolutions, failed negotiations and Saddam's cat n mouse games - it's fair to say they tried every means possible to come to a peaceful resolution. Saddam dictated the outcome with his failure to cooperate as was indicated in prior resolutions.

Exactly. But I guess Saddam should have just been given more time and maybe the UN could pass more resolutions. That'll show him.

Pre-emptive war will always be unconstitutional.

How could that be? The constitution only applies to the US. Saddam and the assholes who support him are not protected by it.

I also get tired of the argument where people say "Well are we then going to go after Iran, China, North Korea, etc?" I guess they think that you have to get involved in all of those situations if you get involved in Iraq or else get involved in none of them. There is just no way to do that, and I don't see anything wrong with doing something about some situations but not others because it's just not possible to fix all the problems there are.

 

[Zhukov]

Quick point:

If we have not been hindered, how come we have caught a dictator that they still cannot prove was implicated in 9/11, and the original ’mastermind’ behind it is still at large

There is a logical flaw here. Though we have found Saddam Hussein it does not neccesarily follow that the act of doing so has in any way hindered our search for Usama.

Secondly, Saddam Hussein supported Palestinian terrorists, therefore he was a terrorist, therefore he was an acceptable target in the War on Terror; yes, this applies to many other people.

There was a chance to really develop working relationships with other nations to step-wise eliminate these terrorists.

I believe that middle eastern peoples understand and are more influenced by strength than UN rhetoric, anecdotal evidence seems to support this. I further believe our demonstration of strength in the middle east does more to further our goals than any amount of talk or sanctions would, evidenced by Libya's sudden submission and a turn in the rhetoric amongst islamic clerics during this years Hajj. The invasion of Iraq and capture of Saddam Hussein has forced many middle eastern leaders to rethink their positions on many issues, and a complete restructuring of the middle east is whats required to completely end islamo-fascist terrorism.

Making friends in the UN does not achieve our goals. Those who share our desire to change the world for the better are already our friends and need no cajoling from us. Finally, we squandered no ill will. That was there long before 9/11 and simply resurfaced once 9/11 was far enough in the past.

unilaterally

You seem too knowledgeable to be using this word in this instance. Unless you mean it in the liberal sense of 'w/o French support'.

 

[wonderwench]

Originally posted by Zhukov

"unilaterally"


You seem too knowledgeable to be using this word in this instance. Unless you mean it in the liberal sense of 'w/o French support'. [/B]

I love that!

 

[Zhukov]

Bush outlined his plan as using diplomacy, sanctions, and ultimately force if necessary to remove WMD from Iraq. Unfortunately he DID bypass the first two, claiming they had already gone that route, and opted for force as the only method of achieving his administrations goal from the early days of the administration

I don't interpret the war resolution that way and neither, apparently, do many in Congress.

H. J. RES. 114 JOINT RESOLUTION passed by the House October 10:


SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to--

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq ; and

(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq .

(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION- In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that--

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq ; and

(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

further, it says:

SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS.

The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to--

(1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and

(2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq .

There is no requirement to obtain said Security Council action, and enforcement of the resolutions already in effect comes first.



As far as the motive for an Iraqi invasion plan existing prior to 9/11 the rationale behind that has been explained in other threads.

 

[modman]

Originally posted by jimnyc
Saddam and regime needed to be removed from power. Force was necessary to achieve this goal. I think the connection you are trying to make is hogwash. Your entitled to your viewpoint though.

Would you agree that Fidel Castro needed to be removed from power? Why did'nt we pre empt him? Is Castro much of a threat now Jim? What makes Iraq so special all of the sudden?