|
Post by bryan2 on Oct 27, 2004 13:58:55 GMT -5
YES! Wrong... but it doesn't matter. Why should the rest of the world play a part in US policy to protect our own? I believe we went to war as a last resort... and so do millions of americans... And the USA did... Where would we be now if we were a good little country and sat on our hands while the UN tried to deal with the problem? You have a very twisted view of our leader... it's most likely comes from only getting your information from biased media sources... Could have fooled me... Could have fooled me...
|
|
|
Post by ClayRandall on Oct 27, 2004 15:08:33 GMT -5
You still believe Iraq is part of the war on terror when there are no WMD's and no links with Al Qaeda? That's how they presented this war in the beginning! First, there were WMD's because Saddam used them. Second, Ayman al Zawahiri is thought to be there right now directing attacks on coalition forces. Third, Sudanese intelligence says that Al-Qaeda met with Iraqi intelligence officials. You think the remaining reasons justify the invasion? Hindsight is 20/20, they say in America. What we knew at the time was that we had suffered the worst terrorist attack ever, that Saddam had resisted UN "efforts" for 12 years, that he was hostile to the U.S., and that he had used WMD's in the past. As part of a global approach to defeating terrorism with so much at stake, Bush elected to active pre-emptively. Sure, Saddam's gone and we're glad about that. This is not directed specifically at you, Bertine, but it seems that those who oppose the U.S. are more outraged by our actions than Saddam's brutal regime. Question is: what does the American taxpayer think about that, so many billions of dollars (and American blood) pumped into regime change and nation building, but no grounds for the reasons that concerned their safety and scared them into supporting this war.... Are Americans really that charitable? Why don't you take a trip to a little cemetary in Normandy, France and find out? While you're at it, ask John Kerry why he voted against the 87 billion? I never doubted that Saddam hated the US, but I wasn't so sure whether he really had the means to do the harm to your country that would call for a preventive war. You use war as a last resort. This was not a case of a last resort. Bush may have believed so, the rest of the world didn't. That is indeed a crucial part of the issue - we were not certain, but we were not willing to wait for another 9/11. With all due respect, it's easy to sit on the sidelines and second-guess us when your country didn't have a 9/11 happen to it. As for the 'serious consequences', I don't know, they didn't define them, but it didn't include war so don't try to get legitimacy by referring to UN resolutions, when you pick and choose what you want to follow anyway... I'm not sure how you can simultaneously assert that you don't know what "serious consequences" meant, while at the same time claiming that it did not include military intervention. I say "serious consequences" included military action, so it is up to you to define what else it was supposed to mean. Sure International Law and the UN are no waterproof guarantee for peace and prosperity, but it's still many, many times better than George Bush's law of the jungle. This kind of rhetoric is a little too emotional. In the "law of the jungle", the strong survive and the weak get killed. The U.S. is committed to staying strong and protecting its citizens. (Here I'm parroting that guy from the article now, the President of the Lawyers' Committee on Nuclear Policy ) We can quote without parroting, right? :-) Kerry still has more in common with Bush than he has with me. I'd be curious to know, seriously, how Kerry's view differs from yours. peace, Clay
|
|
|
Post by Bertine Louise on Oct 27, 2004 15:47:58 GMT -5
First, there were WMD's because Saddam used them. Second, Ayman al Zawahiri is thought to be there right now directing attacks on coalition forces. Third, Sudanese intelligence says that Al-Qaeda met with Iraqi intelligence officials. I was only referring to the Duelfer report. You may have viewed Iraq as part of the war on terror before that, but now you know: no WMD's no AQ links do you still think it was right? Furthermore: chemical weapons cannot be preserved forever, they decay. That's becos we expect more from you! Fwiw, Factcheck.org has the contexts for the 87 billion if you're really interested. Iraq is very different from WW2. Ask your countrymen if they would have supported the war if they knew: No WMD's no AQ link. And here's an interesting poll: www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Pres_Election_04/html/new_10_21_04.html#1I understand that 9/11 traumatized your nation and I do feel for you. However, I think that fear and anger are bad advisors. Becos it goes against the UN charter. The fact that the US thinks it can be above the law and take justice into its own hands just scares me. yup Kerry supported the war an sich, I didn't. Kerry says he can win the war in Iraq, I doubt it, and if Bush wins it will be good that he can try to clean up his own mess himself. Kerry parrots Bush in terms of kill kill kill, I don't like that Kerry likes to shoot geese and pose with a gun, I don't! Guns are scary and I think Americans should find them scary too! There might be more, but I'm in a hurry! He still has much more in common with me than Bush has tho! ;D We both speak french for example! lol Likewise.
|
|
Cindi
Senior Member
Posts: 311
|
Post by Cindi on Oct 28, 2004 0:03:58 GMT -5
"Hindsight is 20/20"
I always thought so too.
lol
Cindi Hinds
|
|
|
Post by ClayRandall on Oct 28, 2004 9:19:25 GMT -5
I was only referring to the Duelfer report. And the Duelfer Report says that Saddam was planning to simply wait out the sanctions/inspections and then re-arm... You may have viewed Iraq as part of the war on terror before that, but now you know: no WMD's no AQ links do you still think it was right? Again, Saddam DID have WMD's, and the AQ links I think are there. It matters little in the grand scheme of things because the Bush Doctrine says that we will go after anyone who represents a threat to our security. The impotent UN sanctions/inspections weren't working and in fact were actually opposing us behind the scenes with the Food for Oil. Furthermore: chemical weapons cannot be preserved forever, they decay. So what? This shows that he had the capability to obtain and develop WMDs. This was the point! Fwiw, Factcheck.org has the contexts for the 87 billion if you're really interested. Factcheck.org also says that Kerry overestimated the cost of the war, confirms that Kerry did vote to give approval to Bush to go to war, and says that Kerry refused to vote for the bill which contained body armor, combat pay and other vet benefits because he wanted to roll back tax cuts to pay for it Bush's point is that when it came to that bill, that was not the time to quibble of tax cuts versus tax raising issues, and the fact that Kerry felt so principled on the economics of the issue to vote against shows that he cannot be a good president. Iraq is very different from WW2. Ask your countrymen if they would have supported the war if they knew: No WMD's no AQ link. 1) But they DIDN'T know and 2) There may still be stronger links found. I understand that 9/11 traumatized your nation and I do feel for you. However, I think that fear and anger are bad advisors. Who said "fear and anger" are our motivation? I say our motivation is the increased need to protect ourselves based on the 9/11 attacks. Is this not a perfectly normal reaction? Becos it goes against the UN charter. Then the UN should never threaten "serious consequences", which you have yet to define for me. The fact that the US thinks it can be above the law and take justice into its own hands just scares me. The US will never let other nations dictate to us how to defend ourselves. I'm sorry that scares you. Kerry parrots Bush in terms of kill kill kill, I don't like that Kerry likes to shoot geese and pose with a gun, I don't! Guns are scary and I think Americans should find them scary too! I don't particularly like guns, either, but to quote something I heard before, aside from slavery, fascism, nazism, and communism, war never solved anything... There might be more, but I'm in a hurry! He still has much more in common with me than Bush has tho! ;D We both speak french for example! lol Hey, don't get me started on France! :-)
|
|
|
Post by But but but on Oct 28, 2004 10:13:52 GMT -5
Again, Saddam DID have WMD's, and the AQ links I think are there. It matters little in the grand scheme of things because the Bush Doctrine says that we will go after anyone who represents a threat to our security. He didn't have them at the time of the invasion. He was no threat to the US. Name a country that does not have the capability to make WMDs. The normal reaction would have been to go after the people who planned it (bin Laden), the country where the planning was done (Saudi Arabia), and the country that harbored the organization (Afghanastan). Where does Iraq figure into that? If The US was actually defending itself from a clear and present threat everyone would agree. In fact every one got behing the president and the US. But then the plan was diverted to something that had nothing or little to do with 9/11. Why did the US not invade Saudi Arabia? There is a real threat. War has never solved any of these. You certainly do not think the US Civil War was about slavery do you? Do you think WWII was about ending Nazism? Do you really think we went to Iraq to stop terrorism? Although some want to proclaim "Mission Accomplished" the threat of terrorism is higher now than it was before the invasion. War is the bully's way of dealing with conflict. Communism in East Germany was ended without a war. Communism in Viet Nam was supported and empowered by the war. Which route give better success? Yeah, yeah. You will claim the French would be speaking German if not for the US. Of course there would be no US if not for the French.
|
|
|
Post by ClayRandall on Oct 28, 2004 11:09:41 GMT -5
He didn't have them at the time of the invasion. He was no threat to the US. Once again, he was a threat because he invaded Kuwait and disrupted the Middle East. He was a threat because his army continued to fire at our pilots. He was a threat because he plotted to assassinate Bush41. He was a threat because he resisted for 12 years the feckless United Nations' attempts to limit his capabilities. He was even a threat to his own people. Name a country that does not have the capability to make WMDs. Uh.....Iraq, apparently now :-) The normal reaction would have been to go after the people who planned it (bin Laden), the country where the planning was done (Saudi Arabia), and the country that harbored the organization (Afghanastan). Where does Iraq figure into that? We did go into Afghanistan, remember? The Taliban is in shambles and they're holding free elections there now. Iraq figured into that because of their 12 year history of noncompliance with UN resolutions as well as local aggression. If The US was actually defending itself from a clear and present threat everyone would agree. In fact every one got behing the president and the US. But then the plan was diverted to something that had nothing or little to do with 9/11. Why did the US not invade Saudi Arabia? There is a real threat. Let me get this straight - Bush is wrong for attacking Iraq but he's wrong for not attacking Saudi Arabia. We're trying the diplomatic approach with them. Isn't that what all you doves want anyway? War has never solved any of these. You certainly do not think the US Civil War was about slavery do you? You've got to be kidding. It wasn't the only issue, but if you're going to try to claim that it was more about preserving Confederate sovereignty you're engaging in major historical revisionism. Do you think WWII was about ending Nazism? Do you think WWII did not end Nazism? Do you really think we went to Iraq to stop terrorism? Yep. Although some want to proclaim "Mission Accomplished" the threat of terrorism is higher now than it was before the invasion. War is the bully's way of dealing with conflict. The only time "Mission Accomplished" was claimed was that the major fighting with Saddam's forces was over. Now we're dealing with insurgents who are coming in from elsewhere including, I believe, Al Qaeda. The US has not been attacked since 9/11, so I'd say we've been safe since then. Communism in East Germany was ended without a war. It sure was - based on Reagan's "Peace Through Strength" military buildup, which was something opposed by Senator John Kerry nearly at every turn... Communism in Viet Nam was supported and empowered by the war. Speaking of "supporting and empowering" Vietnamese Communism, John Kerry did plenty of that, didn't he? Yeah, yeah. You will claim the French would be speaking German if not for the US. Of course there would be no US if not for the French. It's not that simple, of course. Yes, the French helped us during the Revolutionary War, but only because they saw it as a chance to stick it to their mortal enemy Britain. I would go so far as to suggest that they've never been a strong ally, and we more than made up for our debt to France in Normandy. I can tolerate being called "facist[sic]" by ignorant fools, but I have little respect for people who question American generosity.
|
|
|
Post by More Buts on Oct 28, 2004 12:07:03 GMT -5
Once again, he was a threat because he invaded Kuwait and disrupted the Middle East. He was a threat to US business interest. This is very different than a threat to the safety of the US. Our pilots were flying over a soverign nation. We would do the same to someone flying over the US. Well this is the pot calling the kettle black. How many leaders has the US either eliminated, tried to eliminate, or hired people to eliminate? Where is the threat? Being a threat to his people does not equal being a threat to the safety of the US. Well, 300+ tons of 'misplaced' high explosives might change that. We did go into Afghanistan, remember? The TalibaAnd then we left. Bin Laden still is free to plan. Either case is wrong. But if you try to make a case for attacking Iraq to stop terrorists the question comes up as to why Saudi Arabia wouldn't have been the choice. If you were looking for a country to attack to have the greatest effect in stopping terrorists Iraq would not be at the top of the list. If the reason to invade Iraq was because it was the top country for giving terrorist support then we invaded the wrong country. I am claiming that states rights was the central issue. I have been to Germany, Wisconson, Illinois, Sweden, Michagan, etc and I can state unequivocally that it did not. The major fighting was over? How do you figure? There have been more killed since the mission was accomplisted than before. What was over? The carpet bombing runs? You believe or there is some evidence to back up this assertion? Not a logical claim. It has been 3 years. There were no attacks in the 5 years before 9/11 so you could claim we were safe then. That is wishful thinking. The issue was economics not over who had the most weapons. Nice diversion. You are debating the reason they entered the war. The fact is they did aid us and without the French the Revolution would have probably failed. Interesting. Raising questions not a good thing. Everything the US does is not out of a desire to help others. I think as individuals the US people are generous to a fault. As a country, the US has often been 'generous' to people as a means to an end.
|
|
|
Post by ClayRandall on Oct 28, 2004 13:21:21 GMT -5
He was a threat to US business interest. This is very different than a threat to the safety of the US. Even if you believe this exclusively, an unstable Middle East is a threat to the safety of the US - a threat which, by the way, the UN did agree with in the First Gulf War. You're arguing against the precious UN now... Our pilots were flying over a soverign nation. We would do the same to someone flying over the US. They were flying over zones agreed upon at the end of the First Gulf War. Well this is the pot calling the kettle black. How many leaders has the US either eliminated, tried to eliminate, or hired people to eliminate? I don't know - how many? It seems that we agree that this would be considered an act of aggression. Where is the threat? Being a threat to his people does not equal being a threat to the safety of the US. Then being a threat to his own people, which you apparently admit, he needed to be removed from power (and should have been in the first war). Well, 300+ tons of 'misplaced' high explosives might change that. You mean the ones "misplaced" before the military got there? The ones that are used as detonation for....oh, I don't know....... Weapons of Mass Destruction? And then we left. Bin Laden still is free to plan. We left Afghanistan? That's news to me, since I know personally people who have been over there. Do you know Bin Laden is still planning? The next time you see him, tell him I've got a bone to pick with him... Either case is wrong. But if you try to make a case for attacking Iraq to stop terrorists the question comes up as to why Saudi Arabia wouldn't have been the choice. If you were looking for a country to attack to have the greatest effect in stopping terrorists Iraq would not be at the top of the list. If the reason to invade Iraq was because it was the top country for giving terrorist support then we invaded the wrong country. The US is working diplomatically with Saudi Arabia because war is not yet the "last resort". Iraq was a "last resort", because 12 years of UN sanctions hadn't accomplished their goals. I am claiming that states rights was the central issue. Of course - states rights to own slaves. I have been to Germany, Wisconson, Illinois, Sweden, Michagan, etc and I can state unequivocally that it did not. Hmmm......maybe you're right. I guess war just reduced it down to a "nuisance" level. Hitler is still alive in Argentina and directing the genocide of Jews, Christians, anyone else who disagrees with him... The major fighting was over? How do you figure? There have been more killed since the mission was accomplisted than before. What was over? The carpet bombing runs? He was referring to major fighting with the established Iraqi national army and yes, I think they did underestimate the resistance movements from groups such as Al Aqaeda's leader Al-Zarqawi in Fallujah You believe or there is some evidence to back up this assertion? See above. Not a logical claim. It has been 3 years. There were no attacks in the 5 years before 9/11 so you could claim we were safe then. Simply wrong. The USS Cole was attacked in 2000. the US embassy in Kenya was attacked in 1998. That is wishful thinking. The issue was economics not over who had the most weapons. Of course economics played a major role, but it is wishful thinking indeed to say that the arms race had nothing to do with it. Yeah, I just couldn't resist such a great opportunity to point out how John Kerry actually worked against his country to help Communists. You are debating the reason they entered the war. The fact is they did aid us and without the French the Revolution would have probably failed. Debating the motivation of the French goes toward establishing how much of a true ally they have been and are now. It's not that difficult. Would you rather have an ally because of shared ideologies and mutual respect, or because "the enemy of my enemy is my friend"? Interesting. Raising questions not a good thing. Everything the US does is not out of a desire to help others. I think as individuals the US people are generous to a fault. As a country, the US has often been 'generous' to people as a means to an end. Call it enlightened self-interest. :-)
|
|