Full Version: Was invading IRAQ the right decision?
I think many US citizens are having "buyer's remorse" over this war. Now that we all live with it every day like a house we just bought, the rotting timbers have been discovered. On top of that, the mortgage is twice what was thought before buying in.
The sales pitch has been shown to be weaker than the buyers thought, too. Some of the predictions of the oppostion have come to pass and others, like the Al Queda involvement, may be developing.
But we bought this house, regardless of protest, and must live in it for some time to come. A year? Five? More?
Who can tell? Should have never bought this thing.
The sales pitch has been shown to be weaker than the buyers thought, too. Some of the predictions of the oppostion have come to pass and others, like the Al Queda involvement, may be developing.
But we bought this house, regardless of protest, and must live in it for some time to come. A year? Five? More?
Who can tell? Should have never bought this thing.
QUOTE(goamerica @ Aug 3 2003, 10:22 PM)
Paladin Elspeth & Eeyore:
Note he said PROBABLY in the article.
Even if they are in Iraq, then taht means more Al-Queda to take down. They want to take our troops on again, fine. Al-Queda obviously haven't learned their lesson in Afghanistan.
Note he said PROBABLY in the article.
Even if they are in Iraq, then taht means more Al-Queda to take down. They want to take our troops on again, fine. Al-Queda obviously haven't learned their lesson in Afghanistan.
Bring it on? Right?
This probably thing is a source of amusement for me. Hasn't probably been a good enough justification for believing things for hawks in this matter all along. Probably they are quickly developing nuclear weapons. Probably they are capable of deploying WMDs to strike within 45 minutes. Probably Hussein is connected to Al-Qaeda. Probably Hussein will try to get WMDs into the hands of his muslim fundamentalist enemies. Probably the Iraqi people will greet us as liberators.
Wherever our troops have been posted in the age of terror where they are exposed terrorists have sought them out as targets. I do not think the soldiers who were attacked in Lebanon or Somalia would be so arrogant as to claim that all encounters between the US military and terrorists are U.S. victories.
When we went into Afghanistan on our terms things did not work out well for Al-Qaeda. While we are in Iraq as an occupying army we are targets on Al-Qaeda's terms.
How many more Americans, Israelis, Europeans and oppressed Muslims must experience genocide and terror before Democrats realize that policies of non-action cost us all far more than any war ever could? Howard Dean actually seems to view Bill Clinton's tolerance of repeated Al queda attacks on our troops as some kind of virtue. Do the Democrats actually expect Americans to go for this unrealistic, short-sighted, "peace at any cost" approach?
And probabilities are what we must operate on if we are to prevent terror, so yes, of course the war was justified with probabilities, but 9/11 leaves us no other choice. We've seen what happens when liberals get their way, we can't afford to play all defense, or as Dems seem to want it, not play at all.
And probabilities are what we must operate on if we are to prevent terror, so yes, of course the war was justified with probabilities, but 9/11 leaves us no other choice. We've seen what happens when liberals get their way, we can't afford to play all defense, or as Dems seem to want it, not play at all.
QUOTE(aquapub @ Aug 5 2003, 11:35 PM)
How many more Americans, Israelis, Europeans and oppressed Muslims must experience genocide and terror before Democrats realize that policies of non-action cost us all far more than any war ever could? Howard Dean actually seems to view Bill Clinton's tolerance of repeated Al queda attacks on our troops as some kind of virtue. Do the Democrats actually expect Americans to go for this unrealistic, short-sighted, "peace at any cost" approach?
And probabilities are what we must operate on if we are to prevent terror, so yes, of course the war was justified with probabilities, but 9/11 leaves us no other choice. We've seen what happens when liberals get their way, we can't afford to play all defense, or as Dems seem to want it, not play at all.
And probabilities are what we must operate on if we are to prevent terror, so yes, of course the war was justified with probabilities, but 9/11 leaves us no other choice. We've seen what happens when liberals get their way, we can't afford to play all defense, or as Dems seem to want it, not play at all.
You are not calling into a talk radio program here. Debate US, the members of America's Debate. Stop debating these "democrats" that are not here.
Umm, I was referring to Eeyore's "probably" thing, and I was discussing the topic of whether or not the war was right, which, last I checked, was the thread. My personal opinion is that the arguments Democrats are making are not sound. That is within your rules, but thanks for staying on my back. 
The invasion of Afghanistan was absolutely right, I believe. Too bad one of the warlords gave the American military wrong information to allow Osama bin Laden to escape.
The invasion of Iraq was such a paradox. We waged it primarily because Iraq was in violation of UN Resolution #1441, but we didn't seem to care that the majority of the UN was against waging a war but wanted the inspectors to go back in, which Saddam agreed to just before the invasion was underway.
Compounding the problem was using "evidence" that was faulty in the extreme. Claiming "the British did it--they told us" was obviously passing the buck.
Claiming that we did it to remove Saddam Hussein because he was killing his own people was a specious argument considering that the US knew about it when we were still Iraq's trading partner.
The outcome of the smiling Iraqis greeting their Coalition liberators will be belied by the fact that anyone the Coalition sets up, even Muslims, will be considered "US puppets" by the populace. Volunteers from other countries are being recruited to take pot shots at our military in Iraq.
And the awesome amount of money it cost to invade and occupy Iraq, a figure the administration knows will be a problem as soon as they release it, will be grossly paradoxical when Americans continue to read about vital services (such as firefighters, police, harbor patrol) stateside being cut back while the military is fighting for us in the Muslim countries "to keep us safe."
In hindsight, it was a mistake to invade Iraq.
The invasion of Iraq was such a paradox. We waged it primarily because Iraq was in violation of UN Resolution #1441, but we didn't seem to care that the majority of the UN was against waging a war but wanted the inspectors to go back in, which Saddam agreed to just before the invasion was underway.
Compounding the problem was using "evidence" that was faulty in the extreme. Claiming "the British did it--they told us" was obviously passing the buck.
Claiming that we did it to remove Saddam Hussein because he was killing his own people was a specious argument considering that the US knew about it when we were still Iraq's trading partner.
The outcome of the smiling Iraqis greeting their Coalition liberators will be belied by the fact that anyone the Coalition sets up, even Muslims, will be considered "US puppets" by the populace. Volunteers from other countries are being recruited to take pot shots at our military in Iraq.
And the awesome amount of money it cost to invade and occupy Iraq, a figure the administration knows will be a problem as soon as they release it, will be grossly paradoxical when Americans continue to read about vital services (such as firefighters, police, harbor patrol) stateside being cut back while the military is fighting for us in the Muslim countries "to keep us safe."
In hindsight, it was a mistake to invade Iraq.
After 9/11 the game changed. We could no longer afford to sit back and wait for the next attack. The next one could well have been, still could be, nuclear.
Nukes are the ultimate reason we went to war with Iraq. They were working on getting them, eventually would have, and would have used them directly or through a third party.
You can thank Pres Bush for having the guts to finally say 'enough!'. Every single morning when I awake one of the first things I do is thank God for sending Bush our way at just the right time. I still have nightmares thinking what it would have been like if Gore were in the White House today.
The pieces will all eventually fall into place and when they do the world will be a safer place. And history will show the foundation for that safer place was laid by Bush.
Nukes are the ultimate reason we went to war with Iraq. They were working on getting them, eventually would have, and would have used them directly or through a third party.
You can thank Pres Bush for having the guts to finally say 'enough!'. Every single morning when I awake one of the first things I do is thank God for sending Bush our way at just the right time. I still have nightmares thinking what it would have been like if Gore were in the White House today.
The pieces will all eventually fall into place and when they do the world will be a safer place. And history will show the foundation for that safer place was laid by Bush.
QUOTE(Passion51 @ Aug 6 2003, 07:52 AM)
After 9/11 the game changed. We could no longer afford to sit back and wait for the next attack. The next one could well have been, still could be, nuclear.
Nukes are the ultimate reason we went to war with Iraq. They were working on getting them, eventually would have, and would have used them directly or through a third party.
You can thank Pres Bush for having the guts to finally say 'enough!'. Every single morning when I awake one of the first things I do is thank God for sending Bush our way at just the right time. I still have nightmares thinking what it would have been like if Gore were in the White House today.
The pieces will all eventually fall into place and when they do the world will be a safer place. And history will show the foundation for that safer place was laid by Bush.
Nukes are the ultimate reason we went to war with Iraq. They were working on getting them, eventually would have, and would have used them directly or through a third party.
You can thank Pres Bush for having the guts to finally say 'enough!'. Every single morning when I awake one of the first things I do is thank God for sending Bush our way at just the right time. I still have nightmares thinking what it would have been like if Gore were in the White House today.
The pieces will all eventually fall into place and when they do the world will be a safer place. And history will show the foundation for that safer place was laid by Bush.
Passion, save the speech for the next Rally for America.
This TOPIC is about the invasion of Iraq. Care to discuss that at all?
QUOTE(Paladin Elspeth @ Aug 6 2003, 06:06 AM)
The outcome of the smiling Iraqis greeting their Coalition liberators will be belied by the fact that anyone the Coalition sets up, even Muslims, will be considered "US puppets" by the populace. Volunteers from other countries are being recruited to take pot shots at our military in Iraq.
That's to be expected. I don't doubt that any person who becomes the first new President of Iraq will be seen as a puppet of the United States. It has already started:
Arab League on the new Iraq council: Bottom of page
QUOTE
Arab League foreign ministers decided Tuesday not to recognize the interim Iraqi Governing Council as the legitimate representative of the Iraqi people, saying that any official recognition should come when the country has an elected government. The U.S. State Department had sought the council's recognition.
To show the nonsence of some more idealistic (to put it nicely) posters that only Ba'athist remaments are opposed to America, read this:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml.../06/ixhome.html
These people are Freedom Fighters against the American occupier!!!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml.../06/ixhome.html
QUOTE
A militia of mostly Shia men is growing in response to a call to arms made by a maverick young cleric. Harry de Quetteville in Baghdad reports on Muqtader al-Sadr's army against US occupation.
As evening falls in the poor Shia suburb of Baghdad once known as Saddam City, dozens of volunteers queue under the watchful gaze of a local imam to sign up for the army.
But this is not the new Iraqi army sponsored and approved by the American-led administration. These soldiers will receive no monthly salary of £40. Here, prospective warriors are ready to serve, and die, for nothing.
Call to arms: volunteers sign-up at the Al-Ahrar Mosque
This is "Mahdi's army", a growing militia of mostly Shia men who have responded to the fiery call to arms made by a maverick young cleric, Muqtader al-Sadr, two weeks ago in the Shia holy city of Najaf.
Since then al-Sadr has led anti-US demonstrations and encouraged worshippers to resist the US "invaders" and Iraq's "Zionist" governing council, appointed by the coalition.
Now the ranks of this religious army, named after an ancient imam who Shias believe will return to save the world, have swollen into tens of thousands, perhaps more.
As evening falls in the poor Shia suburb of Baghdad once known as Saddam City, dozens of volunteers queue under the watchful gaze of a local imam to sign up for the army.
But this is not the new Iraqi army sponsored and approved by the American-led administration. These soldiers will receive no monthly salary of £40. Here, prospective warriors are ready to serve, and die, for nothing.
Call to arms: volunteers sign-up at the Al-Ahrar Mosque
This is "Mahdi's army", a growing militia of mostly Shia men who have responded to the fiery call to arms made by a maverick young cleric, Muqtader al-Sadr, two weeks ago in the Shia holy city of Najaf.
Since then al-Sadr has led anti-US demonstrations and encouraged worshippers to resist the US "invaders" and Iraq's "Zionist" governing council, appointed by the coalition.
Now the ranks of this religious army, named after an ancient imam who Shias believe will return to save the world, have swollen into tens of thousands, perhaps more.
These people are Freedom Fighters against the American occupier!!!
QUOTE(Thomas @ Aug 6 2003, 04:03 PM)
To show the nonsence of some more idealistic (to put it nicely) posters that only Ba'athist remaments are opposed to America, read this:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml.../06/ixhome.html
These people are Freedom Fighters against the American occupier!!!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml.../06/ixhome.html
QUOTE
A militia of mostly Shia men is growing in response to a call to arms made by a maverick young cleric. Harry de Quetteville in Baghdad reports on Muqtader al-Sadr's army against US occupation.
As evening falls in the poor Shia suburb of Baghdad once known as Saddam City, dozens of volunteers queue under the watchful gaze of a local imam to sign up for the army.
But this is not the new Iraqi army sponsored and approved by the American-led administration. These soldiers will receive no monthly salary of £40. Here, prospective warriors are ready to serve, and die, for nothing.
Call to arms: volunteers sign-up at the Al-Ahrar Mosque
This is "Mahdi's army", a growing militia of mostly Shia men who have responded to the fiery call to arms made by a maverick young cleric, Muqtader al-Sadr, two weeks ago in the Shia holy city of Najaf.
Since then al-Sadr has led anti-US demonstrations and encouraged worshippers to resist the US "invaders" and Iraq's "Zionist" governing council, appointed by the coalition.
Now the ranks of this religious army, named after an ancient imam who Shias believe will return to save the world, have swollen into tens of thousands, perhaps more.
As evening falls in the poor Shia suburb of Baghdad once known as Saddam City, dozens of volunteers queue under the watchful gaze of a local imam to sign up for the army.
But this is not the new Iraqi army sponsored and approved by the American-led administration. These soldiers will receive no monthly salary of £40. Here, prospective warriors are ready to serve, and die, for nothing.
Call to arms: volunteers sign-up at the Al-Ahrar Mosque
This is "Mahdi's army", a growing militia of mostly Shia men who have responded to the fiery call to arms made by a maverick young cleric, Muqtader al-Sadr, two weeks ago in the Shia holy city of Najaf.
Since then al-Sadr has led anti-US demonstrations and encouraged worshippers to resist the US "invaders" and Iraq's "Zionist" governing council, appointed by the coalition.
Now the ranks of this religious army, named after an ancient imam who Shias believe will return to save the world, have swollen into tens of thousands, perhaps more.
These people are Freedom Fighters against the American occupier!!!
Are you being sarcastic? Or do you think they really are victims and "freedom fighters?"
CP
Thomas:
how do you know they are not another bunch of militia weenies fresh from Iran or another group from the old Baathist party? When the war ended, the Republican Guard, or what was left of it, scattered and possibly formed a group of their own and made up a fancy name to scare the crap out of us
how do you know they are not another bunch of militia weenies fresh from Iran or another group from the old Baathist party? When the war ended, the Republican Guard, or what was left of it, scattered and possibly formed a group of their own and made up a fancy name to scare the crap out of us
QUOTE(goamerica @ Aug 6 2003, 01:24 PM)
Thomas:
how do you know they are not another bunch of militia weenies fresh from Iran or another group from the old Baathist party? When the war ended, the Republican Guard, or what was left of it, scattered and possibly formed a group of their own and made up a fancy name to scare the crap out of us
how do you know they are not another bunch of militia weenies fresh from Iran or another group from the old Baathist party? When the war ended, the Republican Guard, or what was left of it, scattered and possibly formed a group of their own and made up a fancy name to scare the crap out of us
The article is just one more in a long line of articles that show the anger and dissatisfaction of the Iraqi people and another reason why I strongly find CentCom's description of their enemies not to be believed.
QUOTE
But this is not the new Iraqi army sponsored and approved by the American-led administration. These soldiers will receive no monthly salary of £40. Here, prospective warriors are ready to serve, and die, for nothing.
From the link above.
Remembering my history, and how bloody, painful our own transition to democracy was, I find the Iraqi dissatisfaction with their post-Saddam world to be a bit less of a travesty than some of you guys-especially given the kind of lives they had under Saddam. And frankly, I suspect that some of these reports on public sentiment are a bit exaggerated.
QUOTE
Nukes are the ultimate reason we went to war with Iraq. They were working on getting them, eventually would have, and would have used them directly or through a third party.
If they were working on them how come we have found ZERO evidence of any Nuclear Weapons programs? (or any WMD program for that matter)
QUOTE
You can thank Pres Bush for having the guts to finally say 'enough!'. Every single morning when I awake one of the first things I do is thank God for sending Bush our way at just the right time. I still have nightmares thinking what it would have been like if Gore were in the White House today.
You have no idea how funny that is. I take it your one of those republicans who thinks god has the right answer for everthing and bush is the reincarnation of Christ. (And just to let you know I have nightmares of Bush actually taking control of the Country. Right now it's just Carl Rove and Dick Cheney running the show)
QUOTE(trinhmaster @ Aug 7 2003, 11:58 AM)
I take it your one of those republicans who thinks god has the right answer for everthing and bush is the reincarnation of Christ.
Don't make this personal. Debate the issues, please.
Folks, here are the facts, we are not the ones to decide whether the war was the right thing to do, the Iraqi people should be the judges of that, don't you agree. While I think that the war was justified. I think the real telling signs are:
1. The Iraqi reaction when Baghdad fell [jubilance].
2. The Iraqi reaction after the Bros. Hussein died [openess about Iraqi WMD programs, etc., etc.]
3. The Iraqi reaction after Saddam is killed [???]
CP
1. The Iraqi reaction when Baghdad fell [jubilance].
2. The Iraqi reaction after the Bros. Hussein died [openess about Iraqi WMD programs, etc., etc.]
3. The Iraqi reaction after Saddam is killed [???]
CP
QUOTE
If they were working on them how come we have found ZERO evidence of any Nuclear Weapons programs? (or any WMD program for that matter)
Here is a Link to the status of the ongoing inspection.
QUOTE(aquapub @ Aug 7 2003, 12:40 AM)
Remembering my history, and how bloody, painful our own transition to democracy was, I find the Iraqi dissatisfaction with their post-Saddam world to be a bit less of a travesty than some of you guys-especially given the kind of lives they had under Saddam. And frankly, I suspect that some of these reports on public sentiment are a bit exaggerated.
Do you actually beleive the average Iraqi citizen blamed Saddam for thier troubles? If so, I want some of whatever it is you're smoking.
Every Arab nation in that region, including Iraqis, blamed the United States for the sanctions imposed on them. The sanctions crippled that country and all it did was make Saddam internally stronger.
I'm not suggesting that the sanctions were bad, but I'm just pointing out that your average Iraqi citizen probably hates us worse than Saddam.
I suppose I'll comment on this notion that US soilders are unwanted by many Iraqis. Freedom Fighters!? You must be kidding:
Most Iraqis want troops to stay, says poll
And this is Baghdad, one of the most difficult places in Iraq in terms of security and rebuilding.
All reports I have read point to the fact that the violence is being supported an extremely small minority of Iraqis. Of course, it doesn't help that these geniuses sabatoge power and water facilities(clear evidence that they are fighting for the Iraqi people). Some "freedom fighters" :rolleyes"
Notics how the article never attempts to estimate the size of this "Shia army". I wonder why...
QUOTE(Michael Howard @ The Guardian, July 17, 2003)
A majority of Baghdad residents feel US and British troops should stay in Iraq for at least a year, according to the first attempt at an opinion poll.
The You.Gov poll results were released as news emerged that a ground-to-air missile was fired at a US military plane near Baghdad airport.
The poll said 31% wanted troops to stay "a few years", while 25% said "about a year."
Only 13% said they should leave now, while 20% said they should go "within 12 months".
The survey also found that half thought the US-led coalition was right to invade.
You.Gov said there was no certainty that the 798 respondents were a representative sample and that several interviews were conducted with gunfire in the background.
The You.Gov poll results were released as news emerged that a ground-to-air missile was fired at a US military plane near Baghdad airport.
The poll said 31% wanted troops to stay "a few years", while 25% said "about a year."
Only 13% said they should leave now, while 20% said they should go "within 12 months".
The survey also found that half thought the US-led coalition was right to invade.
You.Gov said there was no certainty that the 798 respondents were a representative sample and that several interviews were conducted with gunfire in the background.
Most Iraqis want troops to stay, says poll
And this is Baghdad, one of the most difficult places in Iraq in terms of security and rebuilding.
All reports I have read point to the fact that the violence is being supported an extremely small minority of Iraqis. Of course, it doesn't help that these geniuses sabatoge power and water facilities(clear evidence that they are fighting for the Iraqi people). Some "freedom fighters" :rolleyes"
Notics how the article never attempts to estimate the size of this "Shia army". I wonder why...
From the linked Telegraph article:
Staggering.
Granted, there is also mention of documents detailing how to conceal and restart WMD development, but that wouldn't be the first time talk of documents has been thrown out there either. Unless there's actually a WMD find I do not expect this war to be justified on the basis of any supposed threat Iraq posed to her neighbors or the United States and her allies. At the very least, it can not be so at this point in time.
In regards to terrorist ties, I have heard different claims about al-Qaeda and Iraq, but seen nothing beyond an envoy once visiting Iraq. Beyond these claims and the known payments to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers, it would appear that Iraq had such a role in the terrorist world as to be negligible. Those claims I have seen labeling the Iraq war a victory for the so-called "War on Terror" seem gross overstatements, and I don't view the alleged terrorist threat can justify this war.
The one thing that could justify this war is helping the Iraqi people to escape the tyranny and human rights violations that took place under the rule of Saddam Hussein. As noble a cause as that would be, however, I don't feel it is reason enough to go to war. Such problems are frequent throughout the region and the world, many of them still happening today under the rule of close allies with the United States. To help the Iraq people escape torture, rape and execution while allowing it to continue in neighboring Saudi Arabia and Turkey is absurd.
With no viable threat to the world present, tenuous terror ties at best, and a hypocritical stance on humanitarian issues it seems to me our reasons for going to Iraq were for personal gain in the national and corporate sense. All the classic justifications of war, all the possible noble reasons for doing so, seem absent in the march to Iraq. I am glad that the Iraqi people at least have a better chance for freedom now, but I don't want to try and justify that which wasn't ad hoc.
QUOTE
The United States has found evidence of an active programme to make weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, including "truly amazing" testimony from Iraqis ordered to dupe United Nations inspectors before the war, the man leading the hunt said yesterday.
...His 1,400-strong team of American, British and Australian experts scouring Iraq has not yet found actual biological or chemical weapons, Mr Kay told private Senate hearings in Washington. But there was mounting evidence of an active WMD programme, he said.
...His 1,400-strong team of American, British and Australian experts scouring Iraq has not yet found actual biological or chemical weapons, Mr Kay told private Senate hearings in Washington. But there was mounting evidence of an active WMD programme, he said.
Staggering.
Granted, there is also mention of documents detailing how to conceal and restart WMD development, but that wouldn't be the first time talk of documents has been thrown out there either. Unless there's actually a WMD find I do not expect this war to be justified on the basis of any supposed threat Iraq posed to her neighbors or the United States and her allies. At the very least, it can not be so at this point in time.
In regards to terrorist ties, I have heard different claims about al-Qaeda and Iraq, but seen nothing beyond an envoy once visiting Iraq. Beyond these claims and the known payments to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers, it would appear that Iraq had such a role in the terrorist world as to be negligible. Those claims I have seen labeling the Iraq war a victory for the so-called "War on Terror" seem gross overstatements, and I don't view the alleged terrorist threat can justify this war.
The one thing that could justify this war is helping the Iraqi people to escape the tyranny and human rights violations that took place under the rule of Saddam Hussein. As noble a cause as that would be, however, I don't feel it is reason enough to go to war. Such problems are frequent throughout the region and the world, many of them still happening today under the rule of close allies with the United States. To help the Iraq people escape torture, rape and execution while allowing it to continue in neighboring Saudi Arabia and Turkey is absurd.
With no viable threat to the world present, tenuous terror ties at best, and a hypocritical stance on humanitarian issues it seems to me our reasons for going to Iraq were for personal gain in the national and corporate sense. All the classic justifications of war, all the possible noble reasons for doing so, seem absent in the march to Iraq. I am glad that the Iraqi people at least have a better chance for freedom now, but I don't want to try and justify that which wasn't ad hoc.
QUOTE(Conservpat @ Aug 7 2003, 11:05 AM)
Folks, here are the facts, we are not the ones to decide whether the war was the right thing to do, the Iraqi people should be the judges of that, don't you agree. While I think that the war was justified. I think the real telling signs are:
1. The Iraqi reaction when Baghdad fell [jubilance].
2. The Iraqi reaction after the Bros. Hussein died [openess about Iraqi WMD programs, etc., etc.]
3. The Iraqi reaction after Saddam is killed [???]
CP
1. The Iraqi reaction when Baghdad fell [jubilance].
2. The Iraqi reaction after the Bros. Hussein died [openess about Iraqi WMD programs, etc., etc.]
3. The Iraqi reaction after Saddam is killed [???]
CP
If those are your telling signs, I hate to think what you say when the US finally fesses up and says there are no WMD to be found.
When Bagdad fell, there were about 200 people in the streets and on the news. Out of 5 million people. I read that some of them were bussed in just before they knew the troops would arrive.
As far as the response to the Bros Hussien dying, I've heard more negative against the US than rejoicing. And care to provide a link to the evidence of WMD as a result of this "openess"?
No offense, but you haven't provided any facts.
QUOTE(Abs like Jesus @ Aug 7 2003, 11:32 AM)
From the linked Telegraph article:
Staggering.
Granted, there is also mention of documents detailing how to conceal and restart WMD development, but that wouldn't be the first time talk of documents has been thrown out there either. Unless there's actually a WMD find I do not expect this war to be justified on the basis of any supposed threat Iraq posed to her neighbors or the United States and her allies. At the very least, it can not be so at this point in time.
In regards to terrorist ties, I have heard different claims about al-Qaeda and Iraq, but seen nothing beyond an envoy once visiting Iraq. Beyond these claims and the known payments to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers, it would appear that Iraq had such a role in the terrorist world as to be negligible. Those claims I have seen labeling the Iraq war a victory for the so-called "War on Terror" seem gross overstatements, and I don't view the alleged terrorist threat can justify this war.
The one thing that could justify this war is helping the Iraqi people to escape the tyranny and human rights violations that took place under the rule of Saddam Hussein. As noble a cause as that would be, however, I don't feel it is reason enough to go to war. Such problems are frequent throughout the region and the world, many of them still happening today under the rule of close allies with the United States. To help the Iraq people escape torture, rape and execution while allowing it to continue in neighboring Saudi Arabia and Turkey is absurd.
With no viable threat to the world present, tenuous terror ties at best, and a hypocritical stance on humanitarian issues it seems to me our reasons for going to Iraq were for personal gain in the national and corporate sense. All the classic justifications of war, all the possible nobel reasons for doing so, seem absent in the march to Iraq. I am glad that the Iraqi people at least have a better chance for freedom now, but I don't want to try and justify that which wasn't ad hoc.
QUOTE
The United States has found evidence of an active programme to make weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, including "truly amazing" testimony from Iraqis ordered to dupe United Nations inspectors before the war, the man leading the hunt said yesterday.
...His 1,400-strong team of American, British and Australian experts scouring Iraq has not yet found actual biological or chemical weapons, Mr Kay told private Senate hearings in Washington. But there was mounting evidence of an active WMD programme, he said.
...His 1,400-strong team of American, British and Australian experts scouring Iraq has not yet found actual biological or chemical weapons, Mr Kay told private Senate hearings in Washington. But there was mounting evidence of an active WMD programme, he said.
Staggering.
Granted, there is also mention of documents detailing how to conceal and restart WMD development, but that wouldn't be the first time talk of documents has been thrown out there either. Unless there's actually a WMD find I do not expect this war to be justified on the basis of any supposed threat Iraq posed to her neighbors or the United States and her allies. At the very least, it can not be so at this point in time.
In regards to terrorist ties, I have heard different claims about al-Qaeda and Iraq, but seen nothing beyond an envoy once visiting Iraq. Beyond these claims and the known payments to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers, it would appear that Iraq had such a role in the terrorist world as to be negligible. Those claims I have seen labeling the Iraq war a victory for the so-called "War on Terror" seem gross overstatements, and I don't view the alleged terrorist threat can justify this war.
The one thing that could justify this war is helping the Iraqi people to escape the tyranny and human rights violations that took place under the rule of Saddam Hussein. As noble a cause as that would be, however, I don't feel it is reason enough to go to war. Such problems are frequent throughout the region and the world, many of them still happening today under the rule of close allies with the United States. To help the Iraq people escape torture, rape and execution while allowing it to continue in neighboring Saudi Arabia and Turkey is absurd.
With no viable threat to the world present, tenuous terror ties at best, and a hypocritical stance on humanitarian issues it seems to me our reasons for going to Iraq were for personal gain in the national and corporate sense. All the classic justifications of war, all the possible nobel reasons for doing so, seem absent in the march to Iraq. I am glad that the Iraqi people at least have a better chance for freedom now, but I don't want to try and justify that which wasn't ad hoc.
Yuk-yuk....I was only kidding. Seriously
QUOTE
If those are your telling signs, I hate to think what you say when the US finally fesses up and says there are no WMD to be found.
I wouldn't be so sure that that's going to happen.
QUOTE
When Bagdad fell, there were about 200 people in the streets and on the news. Out of 5 million people. I read that some of them were bussed in just before they knew the troops would arrive.
Not all of Baghdad was at that time liberated, plus, many were still afraid that SH was coming back.
QUOTE
As far as the response to the Bros Hussien dying, I've heard more negative against the US than rejoicing. And care to provide a link to the evidence of WMD as a result of this "openess"?
I'll try finding some links. I'll get them in a couple of minutes. What you'll see in them is that Iraqi civilians have lead US soldiers to weapons caches, etc, etc.
Here's one.
And here's another.
CP
You specified WMDs, Conservpat. Caches of automatic weapons, grenades and the like do not constitute WMDs. If you want to support your claim -- called into question by Dayton Rocker -- about:
Edited to add: Dayton, I don't know if you realized your post was the last before posting again, but try not to double post again in the future.
QUOTE
2. The Iraqi reaction after the Bros. Hussein died [openess about Iraqi WMD programs, etc., etc.]
I'm sure we'd all love to see links detailing Iraqi citizens being more open about WMD programs.Edited to add: Dayton, I don't know if you realized your post was the last before posting again, but try not to double post again in the future.
QUOTE(Abs like Jesus @ Aug 7 2003, 12:47 PM)
You specified WMDs, Conservpat. Caches of automatic weapons, grenades and the like do not constitute WMDs. If you want to support your claim -- called into question by Dayton Rocker -- about:
QUOTE
2. The Iraqi reaction after the Bros. Hussein died [openess about Iraqi WMD programs, etc., etc.]
I'm sure we'd all love to see links detailing Iraqi citizens being more open about WMD programs. I know, and that's what I said that I was looking for. I'll have a few in a coulple o' minutes. Maybe I mispoke, I'm not talking about actual WMDs just possible WMD development sites. I'm still looking, bear with me. I saw a report about this on FoxNews a couple of nights ago.
Here they are.
CP
The question I have from this report and the one previously provided by DTOM is this: If all these Iraqis are providing information on how and where WMDs were stored under Hussein's regime, why are they now not finding them? If we know what to look for it should make the search that much easier. It goes without saying with what ease we should expect WMDs to be found if they are taking us to the locations where WMDs were stored in the past, some of them places never before known to U.S. intelligence agencies (according to the report).
For all the documentation, lessons in concealment and revealed locations of past WMD storage, I haven't seen any claims that Iraq had ever restarted and maintained a WMD program since the first Iraq war in 1991.
Maybe it will turn up. Unless it does, though, as I said before, the war can not be justified on the grounds of WMDs or threat posed to neighbors and U.S. interests. My other reasons stand as originally stated in my first post.
For all the documentation, lessons in concealment and revealed locations of past WMD storage, I haven't seen any claims that Iraq had ever restarted and maintained a WMD program since the first Iraq war in 1991.
Maybe it will turn up. Unless it does, though, as I said before, the war can not be justified on the grounds of WMDs or threat posed to neighbors and U.S. interests. My other reasons stand as originally stated in my first post.
QUOTE(Abs like Jesus @ Aug 7 2003, 01:08 PM)
The question I have from this report and the one previously provided by DTOM is this: If all these Iraqis are providing information on how and where WMDs were stored under Hussein's regime, why are they now not finding them? If we know what to look for it should make the search that much easier. It goes without saying with what ease we should expect WMDs to be found if they are taking us to the locations where WMDs were stored in the past, some of them places never before known to U.S. intelligence agencies (according to the report).
For all the documentation, lessons in concealment and revealed locations of past WMD storage, I haven't seen any claims that Iraq had ever restarted and maintained a WMD program since the first Iraq war in 1991.
Maybe it will turn up. Unless it does, though, as I said before, the war can not be justified on the grounds of WMDs or threat posed to neighbors and U.S. interests. My other reasons stand as originally stated in my first post.
For all the documentation, lessons in concealment and revealed locations of past WMD storage, I haven't seen any claims that Iraq had ever restarted and maintained a WMD program since the first Iraq war in 1991.
Maybe it will turn up. Unless it does, though, as I said before, the war can not be justified on the grounds of WMDs or threat posed to neighbors and U.S. interests. My other reasons stand as originally stated in my first post.
Give it time, my skeptical liberal friend, give it time. Once SH is dead and the rest of this resistance erradicated you shall see.
CP
QUOTE(DaytonRocker @ Aug 7 2003, 11:26 AM)
QUOTE(aquapub @ Aug 7 2003, 12:40 AM)
Remembering my history, and how bloody, painful our own transition to democracy was, I find the Iraqi dissatisfaction with their post-Saddam world to be a bit less of a travesty than some of you guys-especially given the kind of lives they had under Saddam. And frankly, I suspect that some of these reports on public sentiment are a bit exaggerated.
Do you actually beleive the average Iraqi citizen blamed Saddam for thier troubles? If so, I want some of whatever it is you're smoking.
I doubt they do. Saddam withheld food & medicine and the Iraqis know it
QUOTE
Every Arab nation in that region, including Iraqis, blamed the United States for the sanctions imposed on them. The sanctions crippled that country and all it did was make Saddam internally stronger.
Show me a link that says this
CONSERV, Show them the link about the scientist who showed U.S. officials the nuclear wmd program parts in his backyard, or the undeclared chemical warheads inspectors found
QUOTE
Here's one.
And here's another.
And here's another.
ABC News. Seriously they had there world icon spinning the wrong way intill a eight year old boy wrote them a letter and told them.
The WMDs have never been make or break for me. We simply needed better intelligence to make a better informed decision on this and we rushed into this war. There was no need for that. It there was such an urgency then we would have faced a mad-man who prepared defences to use WMDs against our invasion. In that case I think most leaders would feel justified in their use for self-preservation. The fact that Hussein was either stable enough (ie not a crazed madman) or not capable enough. Either way Hussein did not have a demonstrated history (sans one post war assassination attempt) of attacking the United States. He did not use WMDs to preserve his regime.
There wsa time for longer negotiations and the war has opened over 100,000 troops to being targets of Al-Qaeda inside Iraq. We destablized the world by using the worlds strongest military to wage a preemptive war without the approval of the UN or a broad coalition of world powers.
You can dig up all of the buried WMDs and balloon making facilities you want in support of the war, but that won't change the fact that we rushed into this one when there was time and opportunity for negotiations.
There wsa time for longer negotiations and the war has opened over 100,000 troops to being targets of Al-Qaeda inside Iraq. We destablized the world by using the worlds strongest military to wage a preemptive war without the approval of the UN or a broad coalition of world powers.
You can dig up all of the buried WMDs and balloon making facilities you want in support of the war, but that won't change the fact that we rushed into this one when there was time and opportunity for negotiations.
QUOTE(Eeyore @ Aug 7 2003, 05:47 PM)
The WMDs have never been make or break for me. We simply needed better intelligence to make a better informed decision on this and we rushed into this war.
I have to agree with you. The CIA doesn't just need to say "well, the Italians and the Brits say it is fine, so i guess there word is good for us"
When, say the Brits give us intell on weaposn of mass destruction, the CIA shouldn't take their word for it. They should send in agents into the field to confirm the claim and they need to set up contacts as well
You know, I was for the war until I lost someone close to me. Friday afternoon I was informed of losing a close friend of mine due to the war.
"The Bushes’ worst nightmare came true Friday when they were notified that their son, U.S. Army Pvt. Matthew Bush, 20, was discovered dead in his squad’s camp near the Iraqi city of Mosul."- This is a quote from my local newspaper about Matt.
It is time to bring our young women and men home from Iraq. There is no more to be done for that country, how many more lives will have to parish? How many young people are we going to have to lose in order for President Bush to say enough? I'd love to see his daughters go to war and fight for the "freedom" of this country. Maybe then he'll understand what a parent goes through, what family members and close friends go through when they hear the news of a passing.
I'm not sure if this post is relevent to the topic, but it's something that needs to be said...definately to President Bush.
"The Bushes’ worst nightmare came true Friday when they were notified that their son, U.S. Army Pvt. Matthew Bush, 20, was discovered dead in his squad’s camp near the Iraqi city of Mosul."- This is a quote from my local newspaper about Matt.
It is time to bring our young women and men home from Iraq. There is no more to be done for that country, how many more lives will have to parish? How many young people are we going to have to lose in order for President Bush to say enough? I'd love to see his daughters go to war and fight for the "freedom" of this country. Maybe then he'll understand what a parent goes through, what family members and close friends go through when they hear the news of a passing.
I'm not sure if this post is relevent to the topic, but it's something that needs to be said...definately to President Bush.
My sympathies are with you...I'm sorry for your loss.
DQ, I'm very sorry for your loss.
QUOTE(debatequeen5320 @ Aug 9 2003, 11:19 PM)
It is time to bring our young women and men home from Iraq. There is no more to be done for that country, how many more lives will have to perish?
Unfortunately, if we leave now, Iraq will descend into an even bloodier civil war. Former regime loyalists, Fedayeen Saddam paramilitaries, Ba'ath party groups, Shia extremists, Kudish autonomists, Turkmen countergroups, Islamic fundamentalists, foreign fighters (Al Qaeda and others), criminal elements taking advantage of the chaos... more will die. And not just from the barrel of a gun. What about the untold casualities due to malnutrition, inadequate medical services, sanitation, etc., which accompany anarchy and civil disorder?
Whether or not we should have invaded Iraq is a very big question but now that we have, what kind of moral responsibility do we have? One of our justifications for the war was that we would free the Iraqi people and give them a better life. Are we going to abandon them again? Recall 1991 when our president encouraged the people to rise up, then put a halt on all further U.S. military action as Saddam ruthlessly crushed the uprising.
I think we've gotten ourselves into a position where we have to finish the job, or look like a hypocrite.
I can sympathize with your loss, DQ. One of my friends died early-on when the war was just starting.
QUOTE
Former regime loyalists, Fedayeen Saddam paramilitaries, Ba'ath party groups, Shia extremists, Kudish autonomists, Turkmen countergroups, Islamic fundamentalists, foreign fighters (Al Qaeda and others), criminal elements taking advantage of the chaos...
Add to that local tribal groups and you get a understanding of the compexities of the anarchic post-Saddam "order".
As for the statue, see http://globalresearch.ca/articles/NYI304A.html
There were no liberating ordinary Iraqis, it was a PR stunt.
If iraqis are saying that there are WMD, why haven't we found any yet? Its been months since we invaded.
Goamerica, ordinary Iraqis blame both America and Saddam for their plight. Just because people are opposed to Saddam doesn't make them pro-American.
On the issue of security, the desire to see US troops remain is more likely to avoid a new civil war, since it would be hell.
To see what the Iraqi people think, see this:
http://www.channel4.com/news/2003/07/week_...raq_survey.html
I am sorry for both of your losses, DQ and Azure-Citizen.
Killing Saddam Hussein or hundreds of resistance fighters will not justify the war. In regards to the WMDs you were discussing before this statement, killing Saddam Hussein and every remaining resistance fighter will also not magically reveal a hidden cache of biochemical weapons or a nuclear bomb. In fact, killing these people, the ones most likely to possess information about such programs, would likely hinder efforts to reveal the threat of such weapons.
From the link provided by Conservpat, inspired and encouraged by goamerica:
They found only a few parts to a single centrifuge buried in a rose garden. These parts could collectively fit in the palm of your hand with room to spare. Now, not only are these totally insufficient for the one centrifuge they were once a part of, the regime would have needed way more than one centrifuge to ever hope of enriching uranium for a reconstituted nuclear program. While it may appear to some that retaining a few nuts and bolts is damning evidence of a WMD program, the fact that these little parts were buried and remained buried for the last 12 years is evidence only to the fact that 1) their nuclear program was indeed dismantled, and 2) the dismantled program was never restarted.
Unless you provide a link specifying what undeclared warheads you are talking about, I'll assume you mean the ones UN inspectors found prior to the war which had at one time contained mustard gas. That's the report I remember anyway. I don't remember if Iraq had declared those warheads or not, but I do remember that they were empty and had been empty for quite some time. I also remember that the previous UN inspections team from 1998 had already known about them and that the most recent team searched the site merely to ensure that they had not been tampered with since.
There have been no WMDs discovered in Iraq. The only trace of a WMD program was the handful of centrifuge components which verified only that Iraq had at least left one past program dormant since the end of the first Persian Gulf war. For all the talk of Iraqis detailing concealment methods or hiding places, this information has not led to the discovery of any WMDs. Each time it has been mentioned, such reports have failed to say whether civilians are discussing concealment methods and places of recent years or concealment methods and places of 12 years ago. At this time, the alleged threat of WMDs is still not a justification for this war.
While I continue to see the administration claim this war to be a major victory in the "War on Terror," I have yet to see how it had anything to do with the war on terror. It has been interesting to see how Iraqi militants and other resistance fighters can be construed in a war as terrorists rather than simply enemy combatants. It does not appear to me that the war can be justified as an integral part of the "War on Terror."
And I've already given my opinion regarding the hypocrisy of using humanitarian issues as a means of justification.
QUOTE(Conservpat @ Aug 7 2003 @ 01:12 PM)
Give it time, my skeptical liberal friend, give it time. Once SH is dead and the rest of this resistance erradicated you shall see.
CP
CP
Killing Saddam Hussein or hundreds of resistance fighters will not justify the war. In regards to the WMDs you were discussing before this statement, killing Saddam Hussein and every remaining resistance fighter will also not magically reveal a hidden cache of biochemical weapons or a nuclear bomb. In fact, killing these people, the ones most likely to possess information about such programs, would likely hinder efforts to reveal the threat of such weapons.
From the link provided by Conservpat, inspired and encouraged by goamerica:
QUOTE
The CIA has in its hands the critical parts of a key piece of Iraqi nuclear technology -- parts needed to develop a bomb program -- that were dug up in a back yard in Baghdad, CNN has learned.
They found only a few parts to a single centrifuge buried in a rose garden. These parts could collectively fit in the palm of your hand with room to spare. Now, not only are these totally insufficient for the one centrifuge they were once a part of, the regime would have needed way more than one centrifuge to ever hope of enriching uranium for a reconstituted nuclear program. While it may appear to some that retaining a few nuts and bolts is damning evidence of a WMD program, the fact that these little parts were buried and remained buried for the last 12 years is evidence only to the fact that 1) their nuclear program was indeed dismantled, and 2) the dismantled program was never restarted.
QUOTE(goamerica @ Aug 7 2003 @ 01:37 PM)
...or the undeclared chemical warheads inspectors found
Unless you provide a link specifying what undeclared warheads you are talking about, I'll assume you mean the ones UN inspectors found prior to the war which had at one time contained mustard gas. That's the report I remember anyway. I don't remember if Iraq had declared those warheads or not, but I do remember that they were empty and had been empty for quite some time. I also remember that the previous UN inspections team from 1998 had already known about them and that the most recent team searched the site merely to ensure that they had not been tampered with since.
There have been no WMDs discovered in Iraq. The only trace of a WMD program was the handful of centrifuge components which verified only that Iraq had at least left one past program dormant since the end of the first Persian Gulf war. For all the talk of Iraqis detailing concealment methods or hiding places, this information has not led to the discovery of any WMDs. Each time it has been mentioned, such reports have failed to say whether civilians are discussing concealment methods and places of recent years or concealment methods and places of 12 years ago. At this time, the alleged threat of WMDs is still not a justification for this war.
While I continue to see the administration claim this war to be a major victory in the "War on Terror," I have yet to see how it had anything to do with the war on terror. It has been interesting to see how Iraqi militants and other resistance fighters can be construed in a war as terrorists rather than simply enemy combatants. It does not appear to me that the war can be justified as an integral part of the "War on Terror."
And I've already given my opinion regarding the hypocrisy of using humanitarian issues as a means of justification.
QUOTE
Unfortunately, if we leave now, Iraq will descend into an even bloodier civil war. Former regime loyalists, Fedayeen Saddam paramilitaries, Ba'ath party groups, Shia extremists, Kudish autonomists, Turkmen countergroups, Islamic fundamentalists, foreign fighters (Al Qaeda and others), criminal elements taking advantage of the chaos... more will die. And not just from the barrel of a gun. What about the untold casualities due to malnutrition, inadequate medical services, sanitation, etc., which accompany anarchy and civil disorder?
So, what does that mean?
To me it means that Saddam was never a direct threat to us and he did a pretty decent job of keeping the peace in Iraq. So far, more luck then we're having.
I'm very sorry for your losses DQ and AC.
Abs, parts of a bomb, they found parts of a bomb. If you don't have these parts of a bomb, you can't make a bomb. The only reason you would have these parts is to build a bomb, so that's that. There's proof of an Iraqi weapons program, accept it or not.
CP
Abs, parts of a bomb, they found parts of a bomb. If you don't have these parts of a bomb, you can't make a bomb. The only reason you would have these parts is to build a bomb, so that's that. There's proof of an Iraqi weapons program, accept it or not.
CP
QUOTE(Conservpat @ Aug 10 2003, 01:33 PM)
parts of a bomb, they found parts of a bomb. If you don't have these parts of a bomb, you can't make a bomb.
They were parts of a centrifuge, not part of a bomb. It worries me that people form strong opinions about the greater significance of this find without even knowing enough to make that distinction. It's like trying to do calculus without mastering addition first.
QUOTE(DaytonRocker @ Aug 10 2003, 04:13 PM)
To me it means that Saddam was never a direct threat to us and he did a pretty decent job of keeping the peace in Iraq. So far, more luck then we're having.
Saddam never was a direct threat to us. That's why they had to make up claims about WMDs that they knew didn't exist and paint him as a mass-murdering monster. I don't think anyone is claiming that Saddam was a nice guy, but he certainly didn't have a cache of nukes aimed our way. He had better things to worry about than what we were doing on the other side of the planet.
Of course, that's not good enough for the Bush administration.
QUOTE(Platypus @ Aug 10 2003, 01:47 PM)
QUOTE(Conservpat @ Aug 10 2003, 01:33 PM)
parts of a bomb, they found parts of a bomb. If you don't have these parts of a bomb, you can't make a bomb.
They were parts of a centrifuge, not part of a bomb. It worries me that people form strong opinions about the greater significance of this find without even knowing enough to make that distinction. It's like trying to do calculus without mastering addition first.
Once again:
QUOTE
Obeidi told CNN the parts of a gas centrifuge system for enriching uranium were part of a highly sophisticated system he was ordered to hide to be ready to rebuild the bomb program.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/06/25/...fuge/index.html
it is proof that they were planning to decieve the world like Saddam is known to do because they were buried and hidden. Who knows where else other materials were buried
They may be underhanded, but it is not evidence of a WMD program as originally argued by Conservpat, or supported by you, goamerica. Planning to rebuild a nuclear program when the world isn't looking anymore is a far cry from actually having done it and necessitating an act of war by American forces. These parts say nothing for an Iraqi threat and certainly don't justify the war on the basis of WMDs.
QUOTE(Abs like Jesus @ Aug 10 2003, 07:35 PM)
They may be underhanded, but it is not evidence of a WMD program as originally argued by Conservpat, or supported by you, goamerica. Planning to rebuild a nuclear program when the world isn't looking anymore is a far cry from actually having done it and necessitating an act of war by American forces. These parts say nothing for an Iraqi threat and certainly don't justify the war on the basis of WMDs.
Especially considering Bush and Powell told the American people that Saddam's WMDs were operational and ready for use against US troops.
Even more outright lies from the Bush administration. Anyone surprised?
QUOTE(Cephus @ Aug 10 2003, 07:50 PM)
QUOTE(Abs like Jesus @ Aug 10 2003, 07:35 PM)
They may be underhanded, but it is not evidence of a WMD program as originally argued by Conservpat, or supported by you, goamerica. Planning to rebuild a nuclear program when the world isn't looking anymore is a far cry from actually having done it and necessitating an act of war by American forces. These parts say nothing for an Iraqi threat and certainly don't justify the war on the basis of WMDs.
Especially considering Bush and Powell told the American people that Saddam's WMDs were operational and ready for use against US troops.
Even more outright lies from the Bush administration. Anyone surprised?
If they were outright lies I'd be a bit surprised, yes. At most they were exaggerations meant to highlight the probabilities. There is going to be more evidence coming out soon according to sources in Iraq. I'm sure it won't be enough to silent the critics, but nothing would be.
Once again, I advise you to look at the big picture. Doing so shows clearly that we made the right move.
They've been talking about releasing more evidence since late in June. There wasn't any then, so I won't be getting my hopes up.
And what would that big picture be, Passion? At the moment at least it doesn't appear to have been eliminating a threat, as Saddam appears to have posed none. It doesn't appear to have had anything to do with reducing terrorist activity across the globe, as the role of Iraq in international terrorism is negligible. Oh, but maybe the Iraqi people are better off. We still support other murderous regimes that terrorize their own people, but the Iraqis are better off -- in spite of the many thousands killed and hundreds raped during and after our campaign. And it's really improved our standing throughout the world, hasn't it?
I must be missing the big picture.
And what would that big picture be, Passion? At the moment at least it doesn't appear to have been eliminating a threat, as Saddam appears to have posed none. It doesn't appear to have had anything to do with reducing terrorist activity across the globe, as the role of Iraq in international terrorism is negligible. Oh, but maybe the Iraqi people are better off. We still support other murderous regimes that terrorize their own people, but the Iraqis are better off -- in spite of the many thousands killed and hundreds raped during and after our campaign. And it's really improved our standing throughout the world, hasn't it?
I must be missing the big picture.
Abs, when a problem is averted through proactive means, there is often little proof left, in hindsight, that the problem would have ever manifested itself. That is a fallacy of reasoning to think that because the problem was averted, that it never existed in the first place.
The UN clearly thought that Saddam had WMDs and WMD programs. They passed 1441, which clearly stated that Iraq was in violation of the preceding resolutions. How quickly we forget that our "beef" against Saddam goes back more than a decade, and that this guy was never going to comply.
Where are the WMDs? I don't know. I am hoping that they are not in the hands of some fanatical group somewhere.
See, I view the WMD issue as something alot different than you, apparently. I don't look for huge caches of 55 gallon drums of toxic substances. I am much more concerned with a single baggie of anthrax spores or other biological/chemical agent which could be used to poison thousands, given the right delivery mechanism. Somehow, you think Iraq needs an ICBM to deliver this things to America, which is patently the wrong way of thinking of this.
The "ability to strike America and her allies" does not equate (in my mind) to planes or missiles capable of striking us. It equates to the will and the mindset and the weapons (concentrated quantities) which I believe Saddam had.
The UN clearly thought that Saddam had WMDs and WMD programs. They passed 1441, which clearly stated that Iraq was in violation of the preceding resolutions. How quickly we forget that our "beef" against Saddam goes back more than a decade, and that this guy was never going to comply.
Where are the WMDs? I don't know. I am hoping that they are not in the hands of some fanatical group somewhere.
See, I view the WMD issue as something alot different than you, apparently. I don't look for huge caches of 55 gallon drums of toxic substances. I am much more concerned with a single baggie of anthrax spores or other biological/chemical agent which could be used to poison thousands, given the right delivery mechanism. Somehow, you think Iraq needs an ICBM to deliver this things to America, which is patently the wrong way of thinking of this.
The "ability to strike America and her allies" does not equate (in my mind) to planes or missiles capable of striking us. It equates to the will and the mindset and the weapons (concentrated quantities) which I believe Saddam had.
A decade long beef is not justification for going to war. We've had one with Cuba for half a century, but we certainly wouldn't be justified launching a massive campaign against the little island south of Florida.
In regards to WMDs, beyond the search for drums of chemicals or baggies of anthrax, there's been nothing to suggest that they even possessed them in the first place. There is absolutely nothing on which to justify this war relating to WMDs outside the argument, "well... we can't prove he didn't." Simply having a history and being a prick doesn't mean that he's automatically restarted any WMD programs, be they nuclear, biological or chemical. Without substantial proof that such weapons were again in production by Iraq there's no justification for war, no justification for the additional loss of military and civilian life.
My argument would indeed be a fallacy if we had something to suggest there was a problem to avert. As it stands there was nothing but mistrust and speculation. The current fallacy is that since there wasn't a problem, such a problem was stopped by our action in Iraq. It's no better than arresting a person of Arab descent and justifying it with, "Hey! You don't know what he might have been capable of. Arresting him now saved 300 lives tomorrow." It's easy to say, but let's see a little something to support that.
There needs to be some kind of revelation in regards to Iraq and WMDs. That is the only thing that could justify this war, and it hasn't looked good for our country yet.
In regards to WMDs, beyond the search for drums of chemicals or baggies of anthrax, there's been nothing to suggest that they even possessed them in the first place. There is absolutely nothing on which to justify this war relating to WMDs outside the argument, "well... we can't prove he didn't." Simply having a history and being a prick doesn't mean that he's automatically restarted any WMD programs, be they nuclear, biological or chemical. Without substantial proof that such weapons were again in production by Iraq there's no justification for war, no justification for the additional loss of military and civilian life.
My argument would indeed be a fallacy if we had something to suggest there was a problem to avert. As it stands there was nothing but mistrust and speculation. The current fallacy is that since there wasn't a problem, such a problem was stopped by our action in Iraq. It's no better than arresting a person of Arab descent and justifying it with, "Hey! You don't know what he might have been capable of. Arresting him now saved 300 lives tomorrow." It's easy to say, but let's see a little something to support that.
There needs to be some kind of revelation in regards to Iraq and WMDs. That is the only thing that could justify this war, and it hasn't looked good for our country yet.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.