Jump to content

Political Discussion


Recommended Posts

Its been a long time since one of these really took of so perhaps the fate of this topic will be more entertaining.

Topic: Justification for the War in Iraq

This discussion will be limited to the justification only (aftermath will be in a later discussion). How valid were the Bush administration's reasons for war? Did the US have enough of a case to commit its forces to the conflict? etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 73
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

1. I really don't think we needed the excuse

of weapons of mass destruction in the first

place. That was just a$$ kissing to the world

circus. The entire planet knew what a creep

Saddam was. So it does not matter if he had

them now because we all know he would have them

in the future.

2. The US was responsible for leaving Saddam alone

and dealing with him for all those years

because it suited us in the cold war with

russia. Even though the intelligence community

knew what he was like. So it was more than

justifiable that we take care of this mess

ourselves.

3. Take for example Clinton. He'd rather play with

his cigar than take the opportunity to take out

Osama Bin Laden. Look at the consequences of

that. We got no Twin Towers!!! Clinton

reminds me of good ol' Nero who fiddled while

Rome burned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by LostInSpace:

1. I really don't think we needed the excuse

of weapons of mass destruction in the first

place. That was just a$$ kissing to the world

circus. The entire planet knew what a creep

Saddam was. So it does not matter if he had

them now because we all know he would have them

in the future.

2. The US was responsible for leaving Saddam alone

and dealing with him for all those years

because it suited us in the cold war with

russia. Even though the intelligence community

knew what he was like. So it was more than

justifiable that we take care of this mess

ourselves.

3. Take for example Clinton. He'd rather play with

his cigar than take the opportunity to take out

Osama Bin Laden. Look at the consequences of

that. We got no Twin Towers!!! Clinton

reminds me of good ol' Nero who fiddled while

Rome burned.

You know something? I like you, I like you a lot!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:


Originally posted by LostInSpace:

1. I really don't think we needed the excuse

of weapons of mass destruction in the first

place. That was just a$$ kissing to the world

circus. The entire planet knew what a creep

Saddam was. So it does not matter if he had

them now because we all know he would have them

in the future.

2. The US was responsible for leaving Saddam alone

and dealing with him for all those years

because it suited us in the cold war with

russia. Even though the intelligence community

knew what he was like. So it was more than

justifiable that we take care of this mess

ourselves.

3. Take for example Clinton. He'd rather play with

his cigar than take the opportunity to take out

Osama Bin Laden. Look at the consequences of

that. We got no Twin Towers!!! Clinton

reminds me of good ol' Nero who fiddled while

Rome burned.


Well..... I might seem unpopular to you and all the US people even if I assure you that I have nothing personal or nor a dislike for americans or the US but I must say what I think on that..... telling lies just to hit your liking it's not my way, so I hope you would appreciate my honesty and try not to have a dislike with me:

1. The weapons of mass destruction that Saddam had and used on the curds militians and civilians several times was provided by the NATO and the RUSSIAN BLOCK years ago.... so your governement might know what kind stuff he had. Sure Saddam was a crap, but there no way you can justify a war in IRAQ to "free the people of IRAQ" and doing nothing for other oppressed countries.

2. The US was not "responsible" dor leaving Saddam on his own, that the way it works, the US is not the police of the world and any nation is free to have an own governement and do what they want, like it or not. The US is responsible of having used IRAQ when it was useful agains IRAN, of have it supplied with weapons, technology, knowledge and military training. That's all.

3. I doesn't want to judge your politicians and governor (we had the same crap here in ITALY) but Clinton granted a period of almost peace and stability in foreign relationship that was surely a good result of his politics.... even if he cares about playing with his cigar and even terrorism had a slow down during his governement..... so I think that the terrible event involving the Twin Towers and the Pentagon was more the effect of the aggressive politics of Bush that the relax of Clinton.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by dennymala:

[Well..... I might seem unpopular to you and all the US people even if I assure you that I have nothing personal or nor a dislike for americans or the US but I must say what I think on that..... telling lies just to hit your liking it's not my way, so I hope you would appreciate my honesty and try not to have a dislike with me:

1. The weapons of mass destruction that Saddam had and used on the curds militians and civilians several times was provided by the NATO and the RUSSIAN BLOCK years ago.... so your governement might know what kind stuff he had. Sure Saddam was a crap, but there no way you can justify a war in IRAQ to "free the people of IRAQ" and doing nothing for other oppressed countries.

2. The US was not "responsible" dor leaving Saddam on his own, that the way it works, the US is not the police of the world and any nation is free to have an own governement and do what they want, like it or not. The US is responsible of having used IRAQ when it was useful agains IRAN, of have it supplied with weapons, technology, knowledge and military training. That's all.

3. I doesn't want to judge your politicians and governor (we had the same crap here in ITALY) but Clinton granted a period of almost peace and stability in foreign relationship that was surely a good result of his politics.... even if he cares about playing with his cigar and even terrorism had a slow down during his governement..... so I think that the terrible event involving the Twin Towers and the Pentagon was more the effect of the aggressive politics of Bush that the relax of Clinton. [/QB]

Yes, I have the same point of view.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My feelings on this subject are well known to the old timers. In short the rational used to gain support of the war was faulty , was based on shaky intelligence, and was part of a strategy cooked up by Paul Wolfowitz and Bill Kristol left over from the previous Bush adminstration. This strategy of preemption ie, taking out threats before they have demonstrated the abilty to do so to us, isnt in and of itself bad. However when coupled with some of the worst diplomacy and international relations , and the dishonesty of lying to the American people by implying a DIRECT link btw 911 and Saddam, it stinks to high heaven.

Bush took the easy road rather than build a case by saying to the country, he has to go, we need allies in that region, and we would rather hated and feared than hated and thought ineffectual.Anytime a leader lies to the country whether it is Clinton or Bush we have a right to be pissed. See you in Nov 04 George.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I started out last year with the view of any sovereign nation has the right to it's own form of government and freedom from attack unless attacked first.

I also share the view of a preemptive strike when it is a proven fact or a high likelihood of an attack being made against us in the future.

Having said that... regardless of either, I didn't cry when Sadaam's statue was pulled down, and cheered along with many of you. Regardless of our initial justification... that sight spelled it out for me.

And as some of our troops have stated... they know what people are saying over here... and they want those talking head pundits to set foot in Iraq and see things for themselves to know whether it was worth it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by dennymala:

Well..... I might seem unpopular to you and all the US people even if I assure you that I have nothing personal or nor a dislike for americans or the US but I must say what I think on that..... telling lies just to hit your liking it's not my way, so I hope you would appreciate my honesty and try not to have a dislike with me:

Shoot away, I'm always critizing my own government too. I have nothing against that at all. Keeps everyone on their toes. And don't fool yourself about lying all politicians around the entire planet do the same thing. So it's not just indigenous to the U.S. .

quote:

Originally posted by dennymala:

1. The weapons of mass destruction that Saddam had and used on the curds militians and civilians several times was provided by the NATO and the RUSSIAN BLOCK years ago.... so your governement might know what kind stuff he had. Sure Saddam was a crap, but there no way you can justify a war in IRAQ to "free the people of IRAQ" and doing nothing for other oppressed countries.

"Weapons he had" is the key word here. No telling what kind of dirty weapons Saddam had aquired from either France and Germany or anywhere else from that matter. "free the people"

I wish Europe shared those sentiments during WWII instead of the U.S. having to get dragged into that crappy conflict and saving Europe's a$$es from the oppression and death from Hilter.

quote:

Originally posted by dennymala:

2. The US was not "responsible" dor leaving Saddam on his own, that the way it works, the US is not the police of the world and any nation is free to have an own governement and do what they want, like it or not. The US is responsible of having used IRAQ when it was useful agains IRAN, of have it supplied with weapons, technology, knowledge and military training. That's all.

U.S. IRAQ history pay special attention to this: "1979 also marks the year Saddam Hussein became president of Iraq; prior to that he had been vice president, and a member of the ruling Ba'ath party (which itself had been helped into power in 1963 with CIA assistance)."

quote:

Originally posted by dennymala:

3. I doesn't want to judge your politicians and governor (we had the same crap here in ITALY) but Clinton granted a period of almost peace and stability in foreign relationship that was surely a good result of his politics.... even if he cares about playing with his cigar and even terrorism had a slow down during his governement..... so I think that the terrible event involving the Twin Towers and the Pentagon was more the effect of the aggressive politics of Bush that the relax of Clinton.

Umm when do you think these attacks were planned? During the Clinton administration!! That's when. Terrorism didn't slow down it took years for this elaborate scheme to unfold all while Clinton played with his cigar. And who was in office when the first attack on the two towers occured Clinton that's who. And what did Clinton do in response, play with his cigar that's what. So don't tell us about Clinton and his peacfull years. He was just too scared to do anything about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Clinton sent strikes into Iraq as well if you can remember. That country has been a political booster for the last three Presidents.

I am a firm believer in the UN and its base philosophy of diplomatic discussion before war and think that the US has overstepped its bounds on this issue.

Let's look at the principle justifications for the war in Iraq as listed in Colin Powel's presentation to the UN security council in February.

https://webmail.colostate.edu/redirect?http...ript/index.html

1. Saddam Hussein was disobeying the UN mandate to destroy his stockpile of biological and chemical weapons.

2. He had links to Al-Qaeda.

3. He had conventional weapons that violated UN limits (primarily the Al Samoud ballistic missile)

Creating a democratic Iraq was not listed in the reasons for war.

Now let's cut these to pieces, yes?

1. They haven't found any or evidence of any in present day Iraq. If they were hidden they would have had to be concealed very well which means they were never in operational readiness during the invasion. This doesnÔÇÖt make much sense for a country that was about to be invaded by the most powerful military in the world. What about US nuclear reprisal? Do you have any idea what hell would break loose if we shot back? Radioactive fallout would drift all over the middle east and destroy the oil supply. The Arab nations would despise America for nuking them and irradiating their nations. OPEC would place a complete embargo on the US. That would be economic suicide. The Bush administration knew that Iraq didn't have the weapons otherwise they would never have risked a conflict. Now the US has a foreword base in the middle east. Saudi Arabia and Israel could never be as accommodating as a puppet government. Now the US can stabilize the middle east and the oil supply by keeping Iran and the Arab nations between Iraq and Israel in check thereby solving President Bush's approval rating dilemma and a future energy crisis.

2. Osama hates Husein, that was evident for years because Saddam was a secular ruler. Islam was not Iraq's state religon. Osama viewed them as infedels and heretics hence no alliance was ever forged between them prior to the invasion.

3. Saddam was began to destroy his long range missiles before the invasion. Considering that Iraq complied the only valid reason how can the US justify the attack?

Why didn't the US attack North Korea? Heck, why was North Korea swept aside in favor of Iraq? The difference was capability. Since the North Koreans had Nuclear capability the US couldn't risk an invasion. China, Japan, and especially south Korea would be at risk of either Nuclear strikes or fallout. The invasion of Iraq is the opening move in a more detailed strategy that had nothing to do with the Iraqi government

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by IceCold:

Clinton sent strikes into Iraq as well if you can remember. That country has been a political booster for the last three Presidents.


Those attacks had nothing to do with Al-Queda's first attack on the twin towers. If you remember, he ordered those strikes on the eve of his Impeachment hearings. Why is that I wonder? (sarcasm). Do I smell wag the dog. I think the impeachment proceedings actually made him put down that cigar finally and had nothing to do with Iraq or terrorism at all. I wouldn't say Iraq is a policitcal booster per say but more a political diversonary tactic. But I do agree, in most part, with you on that aspect. And don't forget Clinton had plenty of opportunity to take out Osama Bin Laden previous to those Iraq attacks ask yourself why didn't he.

quote:

Originally posted by IceCold:

Osama hates Husein, that was evident for years because Saddam was a secular ruler. Islam was not Iraq's state religon. Osama viewed them as infedels and heretics hence no alliance was ever forged between them prior to the invasion.

If you believe that 100%, then you need to take a seat and listen for a bit. What's the best way to divert attention away from any secret alliance or any suspicion of it? You pretend to hate each other. Nowhere in any physical evidence or in all those documents they found in Afganistan

hint at any planned terrorist attack on Iraq so tell me where's the hatred?

quote:

Originally posted by IceCold:

Why didn't the US attack North Korea? Heck, why was North Korea swept aside in favor of Iraq? The difference was capability. Since the North Koreans had Nuclear capability the US couldn't risk an invasion. China, Japan, and especially south Korea would be at risk of either Nuclear strikes or fallout. The invasion of Iraq is the opening move in a more detailed strategy that had nothing to do with the Iraqi government

I think the attack on Iraq was more a message to the rest of the miscreants in the world. "We got you in our smart bomb sights". Have you noticed that North Korea seems to have simmered down from it's bolstering since then. And now that the CIA has been released from it previous bonds, I think we can see more covert actions being taken on these other countries than all out confrontation. I can see it now, our operatives in North Korea reprograming whatever missles they got so if we decide to do anything about North Korea and they decide to launch those nuclear missles they just might find them landing back down on 'em.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nobody should escape blame.

Clinton nearly castrated the CIA. In an organization like that, not everyone can wear a white hat. Next time, let the operatives do it their way. Just make sure the stakes are high enough to warrant "black hat" methods.

Bush strong-armed the CIA. When you're the biggest guy on the block, you can get any answer you want ... even if it leads you astray. Next time, believe it when they tell you the possibility is low.

Getting Saddam to allow UN inspectors back into Iraq was a good deal. If they had stayed, Iraq would've been too busy playing hide-and-seek to build more weapons. But inspectors might've needed to stay forever. Which is about how long U.S. and allied troops might stay, anyway. Next time, quit while you're ahead.

I doubt Saddam would've trusted Muslim fundamentalists, especially Bin Laden. Osama had a reputation for using weapons against those who supplied them. If he is nothing else, Saddam was (is?) a survivor. Better to be satisfied with insulting America and making outrageous claims than to put bombs into the hands of your enemy's enemy. Next time, those same bombs might end up under your own bed.

Nobody in North Korea ever tried to assassinate Bush's father. And North Korea doesn't have any oil. Next time Bush attacks a country, watch closely to see what's in it for him. Maybe nothing. But this war smells bad, nevertheless. Especially to Europeans.

Despite all this, don't withhold funding from the troops. After all, no matter how often you tell your son not to screw around, would you refuse to pay the doctor bills if he ignored your advice and came home with the clap?

And don't "loan" money to Iraq. That's like painting your neighbor's house 'cause you don't like the original color scheme ... then sending your neighbor a bill for labor, paint, and brushes.

But if the Administration wants to really start a war it can't win, let Congress introduce a bill to reinstate the draft.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The draft... There's something that would rock the nation more than 9/11. This war is a wonderful diversion from the local issues at home. Millions of people have lost their jobs under Bush's economic plan. The office of homland security, the patriot act, and new regulations limiting personal privacy all employ the war to stay under the public radar. Isn't it interesting that the British government almost gave Blair the boot because the evidence supporting the war was nonexistant? Even though they are british, their government is prive to more classified documents than Joe American can tap. Something is rotten in the State of Denmark.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Millions of people have lost their jobs under Bush's economic plan.

I thought we were all educated by the media that the president does not affect the economy. This was the spin used to explain why Republicans won the mid-term elections when the opposition party traditionally wins mid-term elections. So, if the president does not affect the economy, then the lost jobs are a result of something else.

Several factors are at play. The most recent factor being discussed by the media is that America has become more effecient, meaning that we are doing more with less. That means that the economy can grow with fewer jobs because effeciency and productivity is higher.

Also, the economy keeps shifting. We are less of a manufacturing economy and more of a service economy, but even that is shifting. I recently debated some friends where I said that Republicans are offshoring work to India while Democrats are bringing in cheap labor from Mexico. Admittedly, that is a gross stereotyping, but it is good for a laugh.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by IceCold:

The draft... There's something that would rock the nation more than 9/11. This war is a wonderful diversion from the local issues at home. Millions of people have lost their jobs under Bush's economic plan. The office of homland security, the patriot act, and new regulations limiting personal privacy all employ the war to stay under the public radar. Isn't it interesting that the British government almost gave Blair the boot because the evidence supporting the war was nonexistant? Even though they are british, their government is prive to more classified documents than Joe American can tap. Something is rotten in the State of Denmark.

Hey now, now, let's not drag Denmark into this

by Howard Hobbs, Ph.D., Economics 1996"The average American thinks the unemployment rate is four times higher than it actually is, according to a new Washington Post survey released Sunday. In fact, many Americans in this election year are looking at themselves in the mirror and asking why they haven't gotten their share in what Clinton is calling 'the strongest economy in 30 years!'

When the Clinton White House measures the U.S. economy,Clinton's statistics just don't correlate to the average American's life experience.

For example, if unemployment is really at a seven-year low why are millions of American over the age of 40 out of work!

For another example,if inflation is really at its lowest level in three decades why is the purchasing power of the Dollar at its lowest level in the past four years?

If the federal budget deficit has, in fact, truly declined to about $109 billion this year from $290 billion in 1992 where are the billions of dollars of lost income taxes from the American factories that packed-up and left the country in the last four years?

America is curious about president Clinton's rhetoric about the economy. Most Americans think that the president's nose is starting to grow again.

The average American actually believes that if Clinton were to tell the truth, the number of jobless would be four times higher than he's been saying during his re-election cycle.

Almost 1 in 4 Americans thinks that if president Clinton were to tell the truth, the current unemployment rate would exceed 25 percent. That is the exact percentage of Americans who were estimated to be out of work at the worst of the Great Depression in the 1930's during the Franklin Roosevelt(D) presidency when nearly all of today's social welfare programs ponzi schemes were first 'dreamed-up' and passed by a Democrat Party Congress."

And let's not forget that sucking sound that is NAFTA.

Congress' Official Estimators "President Clinton has promised to protect Social Security, to reduce the debt to the maximum extent possible, to control spending, and reduce taxes. But, Congress' official estimators show that on all four counts, the President's budget fails. Instead, Clinton's budget raids the Social Security trust fund for $158 billion in five years, it artificially erases the surplus, it lowers the public debt less than doing nothing would, it increases spending, and it raises taxes by $89.7 billion over the 1999-2009 period.

Clinton Raids Social Security: According to CBO, Clinton spends $40 billion of the Social Security surplus in his budget's first year (2000) and $158 billion over the first five years (2000-2004)."

Any president that took over after Clinton would and will have an uphill battle to recover from these and other disasterous policies.

The office of homland security, the patriot act, and new regulations limiting personal privacy all employ the war to stay under the public radar.

Yeah there are alot of downsides to these issues but what could he do. Do you have a better

plan? And if Bush did nothing and we got hit again with a terrorist attack he'd be condemed for not doing a thing. It's a catch 22 situation. Damned if you do and damned if you don't.

"Millions of people have lost their jobs under Bush's economic plan"

Are you sure it's Bush's fault. What about the Enron fraud among others or the CEO of Tyco sucking the company dry for his own personal gain and pleasure. Companies claiming downsizing still because of 9/11 so those rich execs can take home more profit. Etc... Etc... Etc.... And let's not forget wallstreet shenanigans like the Martha Stewart insider trading and or after three weeks of mounting criticism of his $140 million compensation package, Richard A. Grasso, the chairman and chief executive of the New York Stock Exchange, resigned Wednesday evening. Oh no, these things have nothing to do with the shaky economy it's all Bush's fault right... RIGHT!?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry about the sloppiness of the above post but my computer was bogging down and the edit page would not load. I had to log off and do a reboot but that did not clear up the load up of the BC page. So I did a defrag and all seems fine now hence my time ran out for editing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by almostpilot:

For me, the most important thing(and the worst), that┬┤s NOT justify make this war is :

The "Terrorism" are still alive. And this war only helped it(terrorism) to increase, more and more .....

Sincerely, I┬┤m hope that i┬┤m wrong about it.

You are right in this aspect but you might be wrong in your conclusion about why it has increased. Look at where these attacks have occured as of late and that is Iraq, turkey and africa like that's real hard to do in these countries. Everywhere else, they are being caught and rounded up before they do any damage. Consider it a knee jerk reaction to a dying art as these terrorist see their chances dying in most countries. Just giving you another way of looking at events and the consequences.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We must say that teir strategy varies from target to target.... the US an in part the Bristish troops are targeted with ambushes on patrols who try to control the territory, that's done in a clear effort to prevent the terrorist activity and logistic system to be unveiled and then attacked.

Our guys (the Italian troops), the red cross and the ONU representatives have been stroke because of their relationship with the population, someone who try to help the people is surely dangerous to whom want to restore the old ways.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

someone who try to help the people is surely dangerous to whom want to restore the old ways.....


So true..

Since the US has gone back to a more military stance, the insurgents are getting more bloodied attacking US troops. Thus they are now targeting the softer targets, i.e. Spanish, Japanese diplomats and humanitarian entities and Iraqis sympathatic to US efforts. Hopefully the common Iraqi sees through this, but of course I imagine it depends on which "Iraqi" you ask, i.e. Sunni vs. Shiite etc.

I hope the new Iraqi government can successfully implement democracy. One less dictatorship and one more democracy makes for a better world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While a democracy would be nice this probably will not happen for some time. Governments installed in non western countries by the US are typically pupet governments that oppress the people until they are overthrown. Ex. Batista in Cuba, The President of South Vietnam, Guatemala, the list goes on and on. American reasoning behind this was that as long as they are not communist they can do anything. Perhaps this philosophy will change with Iraq but I am in the wait and see mode.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...