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

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by modman
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?

All of a sudden? Have you been living under a rock for the past 13 years? Please try to make sense when you post, it makes it a bit easier for all of us.

 

[modman]

Originally posted by jimnyc
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.

For those 12 years though I don't remember hearing in the news that saddam was getting ready to attack us, i.e. "immenant threat". They kept to themselves for the most part except for Kuwait which was THAT REGION'S problem.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by modman
For those 12 years though I don't remember hearing in the news that saddam was getting ready to attack us, i.e. "immenant threat". They kept to themselves for the most part except for Kuwait which was THAT REGION'S problem.

That's ok, no one ever said Saddam and Iraq were an imminent threat. They were in breach of resolutions. He failed to unconditionally cooperate. He gambled and lost.

 

[modman]

Originally posted by jimnyc
All of a sudden? Have you been living under a rock for the past 13 years? Please try to make sense when you post, it makes it a bit easier for all of us.

I could'nt be any clearer. Either you don't understand what I'm saying or choose no to. From a threat stand point. How do you compare the two? We made it through the cold war for quite a long time without getting nuked. Saddam made no threats like moving his nukes 90 miles off the coast of Florida (which he did'nt have by the way). He stayed in his region and delt with his own agenda. We plain and simply used terrorism as an excuse to wage a war.

 

[jimnyc]

I could'nt be any clearer. Either you don't understand what I'm saying or choose no to. From a threat stand point. How do you compare the two?

You don't compare the 2, they aren't the same. 2 quite different times as well.

We made it through the cold war for quite a long time without getting nuked.

And we made it through how many years without someone crashing 3 airlines and killing 3,000 people? Again, you're comparing 2 different times. You can't negate the reasons for invading Iraq by trying to compare to other places. If you want to debate why we didn't do something to Castro or Russia during the cold war, we can do that. If you want to debate the reasons for invading Iraq, we can do that. Trying to tie them together is ridiculous, and appears to be the desperate move of many without a clue these days.

Saddam made no threats like moving his nukes 90 miles off the coast of Florida (which he did'nt have by the way).

He just killed hundreds of thousands of his own citizens. He refused to stop the oppression of his people even though it was demanded in the UN resolutions. He refused to cooperate fully with investigators. He was actively working on acquiring nuclear capability, and inspectors stated he would likely have succeeded if left untouched. He refused to return bodies to Kuwait. He refused to return belongings to Kuwait. Both of these were also demanded by UN resolutions.

He stayed in his region and delt with his own agenda.

Yes, and his agenda was to trample the rights of his citizens and acquire weaponry to terrorize.

We plain and simply used terrorism as an excuse to wage a war.

I take it you haven't read the resolutions, or you didn't comprehend them.

 

[modman]

Originally posted by jimnyc
That's ok, no one ever said Saddam and Iraq were an imminent threat. They were in breach of resolutions. He failed to unconditionally cooperate. He gambled and lost.

Here is a little snipit I pulled off the net to help you along:

In his speech in Cincinnati Oct. 8, 2002, the president called Iraq "a grave threat to peace" that "possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons" and "could bring sudden terror and suffering to America."

He continued: "Some ask how urgent this danger is to America and the world. The danger is already significant and it only grows worse with time. If we know Saddam Hussein has dangerous weapons today -- and we do -- does it make any sense for the world to wait to confront him as he grows even stronger and develops even more dangerous weapons?"

If the president didn't use the exact words "imminent threat," the man running the war for him, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, did him one better by describing the threat as "immediate" in testimony before the House Armed Services Committee Sept. 18, 2002, three weeks before Mr. Bush's Cincinnati speech.

 

[modman]

Originally posted by jimnyc
You don't compare the 2, they aren't the same. 2 quite different times as well.

I'll agree being from 2 different time periods does have it's distinct differences. How does the threat level differ between the two? Obviously neither side could make a move because of the missiles but if we had to choose between the two on which to preempt? I think Cuba\Russia would take the cake.

And we made it through how many years without someone crashing 3 airlines and killing 3,000 people? Again, you're comparing 2 different times. You can't negate the reasons for invading Iraq by trying to compare to other places. If you want to debate why we didn't do something to Castro or Russia during the cold war, we can do that. If you want to debate the reasons for invading Iraq, we can do that. Trying to tie them together is ridiculous, and appears to be the desperate move of many without a clue these days. [/B]

I think many people have a clue and is exactly the reason we debate. If we don't look at all the angles and possibilities then we are lazy. I think using Cuba as an example of a regime that was out of control and an imminent threat to compare to Iraq is quite argueable.

He just killed hundreds of thousands of his own citizens. He refused to stop the oppression of his people even though it was demanded in the UN resolutions. He refused to cooperate fully with investigators. He was actively working on acquiring nuclear capability, and inspectors stated he would likely have succeeded if left untouched. He refused to return bodies to Kuwait. He refused to return belongings to Kuwait. Both of these were also demanded by UN resolutions. [/B]

These are internal problems of those nations. We have had ours. Remember the civil war. Yes, the UN and inspectors hounded him and it kept his programs under wraps which is enough in itself not to have to resort to war. Isreal and Palestine keep bodies all the time. I remember a prisoner exchange not too many days ago.

Yes, and his agenda was to trample the rights of his citizens and acquire weaponry to terrorize. [/B]

Refer to my above opinion.

I take it you haven't read the resolutions, or you didn't comprehend them. [/B]

I have read them and understand them. It means very little to Saddam I think.

 

[Zhukov]

How does the threat level differ between the two? Obviously neither side could make a move because of the missiles but if we had to choose between the two on which to preempt? I think Cuba\Russia would take the cake.

?

Well...if the risk of invading Iraq included the possible destruction of humanity I doubt Bush would have done it....is that enough of a difference?

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by Ralph Wiggums
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.

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

 

[Ralph Wiggums]

The original quote was …

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.

Not

unilaterally

One word taken out of context, can skew any statement apparently. This must come from being inundated by media bias that uses similar tactics.

While it is tempting to connect unilaterally squandering goodwill, and unilaterally going to war, in the original context that is not what was being compared. In its original context, what I was saying was that BUSH did UNILATERALLY squander the world’s goodwill towards the US after 9/11. By insulting the UN and its members in the buildup to the war, Bush was the one who created ill will towards us from those member nations. Was it not possible for Bush to tactfully have worked with those countries? Did he have to insult them when he was trying to convince them to assist us? IMHO, that is not a very good statesmen/ambassador. That’s not even being a decent person, and he is supposedly a practicing Christian (to attract Bible belt voters one would surmise). If he was a person who really practiced and believed his religion, he would realize there are other ways to communicate with people. A president shouldn’t have to resort to grade school rhetoric to compensate for a lack decent people skills. Even the knowledge that some countries would not approve, participate, or cooperate does not remove our responsibility to treat other nations or legitimate organizations respectfully. One never knows when their assistance may be available in the future. For instance, the war may go badly, we may want to pull out to make a re-election viable, and we may have to go back to the same organization begging….er requesting help in installing a transitional government. Boy would we look foolish having to do that, oh wait we already are.

Note, I did not say we went to war unilaterally, just that Bush by himself squandered the world’s goodwill towards us that way. Perhaps we didn’t squander the world’s goodwill unilaterally. If what you’re alluding to is that we had the help of the British and every Coalition nation in dragging down our reputation, I suppose we should have words with them for helping us look bad. Because of course no action the President takes is his fault, he is merely reacting to the circumstances.

While he did not go to war unilaterally, the number of contributions (militarily or financially, take your pick) from other Coalition members (at the time we went to war) were laughable.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_orbat_coalition.htm

Also, polls taken from before the war until the present have shown the majority of those countries whose governments that did back us, show that the PEOPLE of those countries did not support their government’s decision to back us in a pre-emptive war.

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 necessarily 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.

Again, the full context was……

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?

Please explain my ‘logical flaw’ a little more logically to me then. So by extrapolating from your logic, splitting our fighting forces (and splitting is a generous term as the majority of our troops are in Iraq, not Afghanistan where UBL was last known to have resided), did not reduce our chances of finding UBL? Reducing the number of troops actively looking for him and his network did not diminish the potential to find them? Instead of finishing the job on one front, having a two front war is actually helping bring al-Qaeda to justice? Seeing that Bush cannot finish what he started is not the vote of confidence most people need to see that he is truly committed to the war on terror. Mission accomplished?

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.

That is one perception of how things went down. True of course we were not loved by all pre 9/11. However, we did have a chance to nurture the goodwill that was being displayed worldwide post 9/11. The Bush administration did nothing of the sort. He insulted other nations almost out of the gate in the war on terror. If the nations that supposedly are no longer our 'friends' hadn’t supported us in going into Afghanistan that would be a different issue, but they did support us. However on Iraq, they were merely questioning the rationale and logic for going into a country that had no clear links to 9/11 (and still do not today except for the ones that have come in since SH was taken out of power). If they did not approve, they had the right to express that. It was the arrogance of Bush to insult them for not joining in, that did the distancing, not time.

I tend to think I am more of an independent moderate than any preconceived attitude that may get assigned to me here. It is true I do not agree with some of the policies of our sitting President, but that is true of any President we have had in my short existence (especially the former one). The reason I posted was that it seems that anyone who posts any opposing view to those who have not been run off from this board by the ultra right wingers is automatically labeled as a liberal (read undesirable) and is targeted for corrective action through the same media biased selective listening that those same liberals are accused of. From what I have read here, if someone hasn’t had the chance or time to read every single post here, they are belittled by the author(s) of some post that supposedly explains why they are allowed to talk down to the person they feel superior to. This is usually done without the courtesy of a link to explain it in more detail, and without the thought that there is no need to add to the hostility that is rampant between the polarized factions. From what I’ve read, no one with dissenting opinions is tolerated, and it is a group gang bang against the infidel. It is as if “If you’re not with us, you’re against us”, is the prevailing mindset. I’m not saying this applies to all. In fact, I respect the way in which you responded Zhukov, as far as attitude towards me. I do not appreciate things taken out of context as if they were valid points, but overall there was no disrespect. Most outsiders here would agree that is not the patent response.

 

[modman]

Originally posted by Zhukov
?

Well...if the risk of invading Iraq included the possible destruction of humanity I doubt Bush would have done it....is that enough of a difference?

Weapons of mass destruction ring a bell?

 

[Zhukov]

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?

In this case the full paragraph was not neccessary to understand the point you were making. Your point is:

If we have not been hindered, how come we have caught a dictator...and the original ’mastermind’ behind [9/11] is still at large

I don't think that that is an unfair paraphrasing of your statement, and I would ask, what does one have to do with the other? Bush wasn't planning on sending 150,000 troops into Afghanistan to find UBL, he apparently feels he currently has a sufficient force in country to co-ordinate the effort. Further the Iraqi war resolution states that the invasion of Iraq would only be permissible under the condition that it did not hinder the search for bin Laden. I would guess that Bush's administration has a better idea as to what resources are required to achieve UBL's capture or death better than you or I and I further assume Bush wants to catch UBL. I doubt he would neglect to pursue any avenue of investigation in favor of any other task. It's perfectly believable that we can have a few thousand special forces in Afghanistan looking for UBL while at the same time the bulk of our military invades and conquers Iraq, and both of these efforts are executed in a manner supported by the Pentagon and deemed the best chance for success. I think we will find UBL in the end, and it is the concensus of the intelligence agencies (i know, i know) that UBL is not currently in a position to plan or co-ordinate attacks. His flight status limits him to little more than propaganda.

However, we did have a chance to nurture the goodwill that was being displayed worldwide post 9/11. The Bush administration did nothing of the sort. He insulted other nations almost out of the gate in the war on terror. If the nations that supposedly are no longer our 'friends' hadn’t supported us in going into Afghanistan that would be a different issue, but they did support us.

Strictures of the NATO treaty demanded French and German support in response to an attack on a member nation. I question wether or not they would have supported us otherwise.

However on Iraq, they were merely questioning the rationale and logic for going into a country that had no clear links to 9/11 (and still do not today except for the ones that have come in since SH was taken out of power). If they did not approve, they had the right to express that. It was the arrogance of Bush to insult them for not joining in, that did the distancing, not time.

A connection to 9/11 was not argued as the rationale for an Iraqi invasion. Disobeyance with UN resolutions was our chief argument for UN action. What these countries did not approve of was enforcing their own words(this on top of what appear to be bribes made by Saddam to influence resolution enforcement). I don't believe it was Bush's arrogance so much as it was his refusal to beg them for help and approval that led to the old world arrogance resurfacing. They were so used to Clinton, I'm sure they were offended by Bush's manner. But that's their problem, not ours. He said we're going to do this regardless because it's the right thing to do, and everyone should get on board. Maybe they thought we we're bluffing. I'm sure Saddam did.

Instead he and his administration have (if I can borrow a catch-phrase) unilaterally...

Ok I apologize. I admit I got to 'unilaterally' and just stopped reading. That word has been thrown around so much lately I thought I could reasonable predict the rest of the sentence.

However,

While he did not go to war unilaterally, the number of contributions (militarily or financially, take your pick) from other Coalition members (at the time we went to war) were laughable.

Everyone gives what they can. I'm proud of Poland's support, however little they were able to contribute. I would have been proud even if it had only been words of encouragement. We shouldn't belittle the contributions of anyone else. We should be grateful for their help and friendship.

 

[Zhukov]

Originally posted by modman
Weapons of mass destruction ring a bell?

Can you say Mutually Assured Destruction? Do you remember, "we will view any attack launched from Cuba against the United States or our allies as an attack by the Soviet Union."?

 

[tim_duncan2000]

I have read them and understand them. It means very little to Saddam I think.

Exactly. He didn't care about resolutions and things like that, which was why action needed to be taken (and should have been taken much, much sooner. '91 would have been a good time, but that wasn't part of the mission).

While he did not go to war unilaterally, the number of contributions (militarily or financially, take your pick) from other Coalition members (at the time we went to war) were laughable.

Regardless of which countries got on board, it would, like always, be the US doing most of it (people who say that they would have liked it to have been UN-led should realize that it would still be mainly the US doing it).

Well...if the risk of invading Iraq included the possible destruction of humanity I doubt Bush would have done it....is that enough of a difference?

That is a huge difference and it's a major factor. It's sort of the same thing with the North Korea situation. Regardless of whether or not they truly have the capability to launch a ballistic missile at South Korea/Japan/some other place, I've read about how they have artillery and rockets that they would launch at South Korea (and, specifically, Seoul, the capital). While that's certainly not the destruction of humanity, it could be the destruction of some cities and the deaths of possibly millions. Hardly the same as Iraq.

 

[Zhukov]

And another thing:

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

I might point out that the President, and thru him the State Department are the ones in charge of squadering or fostering international good-will as they see fit. That's their job. It is not required of them to get approval from anyone else for their actions in that arena. Now, they may have to answer to any relevant Congressional committees after the fact, but as half of those would be Republican, it's safe to assume half of any relevant committee would agree with the administration's stance. In what way would you have preferred the State Department to have not acted unilaterally?

That is a huge difference and it's a major factor. It's sort of the same thing with the North Korea situation. Regardless of whether or not they truly have the capability to launch a ballistic missile at South Korea/Japan/some other place, I've read about how they have artillery and rockets that they would launch at South Korea (and, specifically, Seoul, the capital). While that's certainly not the destruction of humanity, it could be the destruction of some cities and the deaths of possibly millions. Hardly the same as Iraq.

Precisely.

I think the Administration is fairly confident N Korea has everything it needs for a nuclear bomb, and I think they are fairly confident they have no idea where any of it is.

The possible nuclear annihilation of a Japanese city is more risk than the administration is currently willing to accept.

They know N Korea has missles that can reach Japan (they fired one over Japan a year back) and possibly the west coast of the US, they know N Korea has an enormous well-entrenched army relative to it's population, and they know N Korea is ready to attack S Korea at any time.

In order to succesfully attack N Korea it would require a simultaneous aerial bombardment on a scale much greater than the initial attacks on Iraq in both wars combined which took place over a matter of weeks. We would have to knock out every important target in N Korea in a matter of hours to ensure that no nukes got away. I not sure we are capable of that quite yet.

The differences between pre-war Iraq and the current situation on the North Korean peninsula are enormous.

Multiply it by 10,000 and you have the differences between N Korea and China.

 

[Bern80]

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?

This is from a while back, but a point that should be made none the less as it illustrates a fundamental difference between conservatives and liberals.

To conservative morality is NOT ambiguous. This "who am I to decide what is right or wrong" is B.S. Were you born w/o a conscience? Some things are inherently right or wrong, i.e. Saddam was evil and is wrong. That being the case your opinion of it matters squat. If China were to propose the scenario above that would be open for much debate. The need for Saddam to be removed from power is not open to such debate.

 

[Psychoblues]

Saddam is history, The peoples of Irag know less freedom today than they did before he left, Americans are being maimed and killed even today, Halliburton et al are making billions. OBL is still on the loose and planning future death and destruction. What is new?

 

[wonderwench]

PB,

I am all in favor of having a healthy fantasy life, but yours is a bit extreme.

The Iraqis are far, far, far better off now than under Saddam. We are not exterminating them by the hundreds of thousands and planting them in mass graves. Nor are we raping their daughters in order to control the men.

Jeebus, a little perspective wouldn't hurt.

 

[Psychoblues]

Keep your "jeebus" to yourself, lil' sister. Tell me about "freedom" when they break into YOUR house or when they kill your brother, father, or even sister or mother in some misguided missle attack or some such other explanation of war. Tell me about freedom when you can't sell your goods or provide your services due to some neighborhood intervention by American troops. Tell me about freedom when you have yourself volunteered your life for the protection of a stranger's freedom. Tell me all about "freedom".

 

[wonderwench]

Please provide the links to stories detailing the horrors you claim have occured in the U.S. You are buying into the lunatic fringe hysteria that equates the U.S. with totalitarian regimes. Moral relativism in the extreme - and highly delusional.

If it were as you claim, you would have been executed by now.