Womd

[paintballguy429]

Originally posted by Collegeboy


My question is why Iraq, why now? If we supposedly went into Iraq for humanitarian issues, why not go into N. Korean, why not go into Zimbabwe, why not go into Azerbaijan, or Kazakhstan, why not?

Very good point.

If you want to argue about how much of a threat Iraq was to the US (no threat), then why wouldn't Bush be bombing N. Korea?

Because of 9/11. We needed a scapegoat. First there was the Taliban. That got old, we needed something new. Iraq was perfect. Lead by extreme fundamentalist Muslims, an evil, opressive ruler, and could be easily blamed for 9/11.
North Korea is none of those, therefore Bush can't drum up enough support for an invasion.

After 9/11, the majority of Americans will let Bush do anything without protest, because somehow dissent is unpatriotic and we all know how fashionable patriotism is now.

[ERut]

Originally posted by paintballguy429
After 9/11, the majority of Americans will let Bush do anything without protest, because somehow dissent is unpatriotic and we all know how fashionable patriotism is now.

Not anymore... approval rating down to 40%

[Miscue]

Originally posted by Collegeboy
Are Iraqis better without Saddam? I do not think you will find one person on the face of this planet that will say no to that. (well maybe a couple)

Are the Iraqis better without Saddam and with a country designed and built by the US, I think not. For IMO any country built by the US will when it is all said and done not survive, and Iraq will be back to its old shape, just worst. (from civil wars and such, challenging for power, for a government put into power by anyone other then Iraqis will be found lacking in someone's eyes)

This was my objection to the war from the very beginning. I could care less about WMD, or the justification for war, for that could always been stretched or made up, or what ever. Just was war necessary was my objection.

To those who said that WMD was not the reason we went to war. The public overwhelmingly thought it was the reason, so it was the reason. Doesn't matter if the president only said it once in a speech, it is the reason.

My question is why Iraq, why now? If we supposedly went into Iraq for humanitarian issues, why not go into N. Korean, why not go into Zimbabwe, why not go into Azerbaijan, or Kazakhstan, why not?

I think we should have left Saddam alone. So he kills people, and lots of them. Torture, rape, death... this is nothing new. So he has association with terrorists... big whoop. The point is, Bush said that we went in because of WMD... and he is a big liar and fooled us all... and we all know it's because of the oil. There were no WMDs, so we should have never went in. He can keep killing and torturing, and oppressing... that's ok, because he doesn't have WMD's and it is none of our business. It is a FAR worse thing for the US to think that they can remove this... and it is arrogant for them to think that they can make Iraq a better place.

There are no gas-chambers, no mass murder of Jews, no atrocities being committed... you have no proof. This is all stuff the media has cooked up, it's not real. What right does the US have to invade Germany. So Hitler isn't a very nice guy, it's far worse to take over Germany and then try to rebuild it. What right do we have? What arrogance? They are much better off without us.

You see, if Iraq was peachy-keen over night... then there really wouldn't be a whole lot you could criticize about the US's actions. But what people don't get is, that rebuilding a country is not something that happens over night. It takes a long time. But, eventually it can be rebuilt. Rebuilt without tyranny.

And, there wasn't just one reason why we went in. There were a lot of reasons. I don't understand why people forget about these reasons because of an issue with one of them that is yet to be resolved... and doesn't matter anyway.

I'd like to think that in our lifetime, we can go to Iraq to visit and it will be safe there and be very different from when Saddam was in power.

And... I think someday I will have to do that. I'll be able to talk to these people, maybe ask them about how the election is going... or how some leader is doing. And, they'll be able to tell me what they feel without worrying about getting punished.

The day I talk to an Iraqi, who is able to freely tell me that some current elected official is a big dumb jerkface... will be a day when I can think to myself... these anti-war people were completely full of crap just like I knew, and this is proof. If we didn't go in, he would not be allowed the simple freedom of voicing his air-headed, liberal thoughts.

This is what people died for. And someday... nobody will have to die anymore fighting for freedom or being the victim of oppression.

[Albinonewt]

Originally posted by -Carnifex-


I've yet to get into a debate with you; I'm not sure when you bettered anything I've said down.

You're going to deny that both sides don't use propaganda?

I can't count the times that you chime into a debate with the current popular media tagline to have either Deadeye or I run right back at it and then you say "Well, I don't know much about it".

You've done it for WMD, Bush, and the French (remember when I had to explain Degaulism to you). Learn a little before chiming in. An uninformed opinion is just heresey

[Albinonewt]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by joey d
personally, and I think some others may join me on this..

bush did this to pickup where his father left off. george senior couldnt finish the job in desert storm, and now george junior is trying to finish the job.

I disagree that he's did solely to finish his Dad's job. The Iraq war was the biggest failure of Bush I (and that's saying a lot). By going back in and spending the money and the blood the oust Saddam it doesn't vindicate his father, it casts light once again on his biggest failure. Plus, let us not Clinton also ordered strikes on Iraq, that wasn't to finish the job that Bush I started, that was because Clinton saw a threat and (sort of) dealt with it.


you know, I distinctly remember bush saying that we were going over there to do 2 things. oust saddam from power, and find WMD. well, saddam is gone, sorta.. and we havent found the WMD, and its not looking hopeful. so, I guess, as history tends to repeat itself, we dont know when to quit. US military still has forces over in IRAQ settling down for what looks to be an occupation of the territory to me, one thing bush said US forces would not be used for. wheres the UN troops?

Saddam is totally out of power. He may be a live but he is not in control anymore. THe WMD hunt is still in it's infant stages (remember those bunkers I was talking about). As for the occupation, well it is sort of an occupation, but not in the traditional sense. We are training their military, their police, rebuilding their infrastructure. It's not like their occupied Poland, more like France when it needed rebuilding.


so it is the US Militarys responsibility to end horrible dictatorships across the world?

Some people think so.

I hear so much BS about how saddam was a horrible dictator. while it may be true.. thats not the reason we were over there. we went there to oust him because he was a threat to the US and the allies it maintained in the middle east/europe area. they also presented great threats to other countries in the area too.

It's kind of the reason. We did not go over their solely to free the Iraqi people. We went over there because it was in the strategic interests of the United States to have this psycho out of power. Saddam had powerful weapons. He had a real hate on for the US (remember he did try to assassinate Bush I, so he has threatened us). He harbored terrorists. Now, maybe he wasn't planning to give the terrorists weapons to attack us with. But I'd rather stop him before he does then hope that he doesn't.


so, what I take from this, that lets say, there was no WMD. no threat to the US or other countries, just poor dictatorship.

should we still have commited US troops to iraq?

A tough question. If there were zero US interests then no, I don't advocate war simply for freeing people from the dictator. If there is zero threat to the US then I do not advocate sending our boys to fight. But, Iraq was a threat.

[Albinonewt]

Re: Re: Womd

Originally posted by paintballguy429
He needed badly to manufacture a cause. WMD are scary. Obviously, Americans will be scared by someone other than the US having WMD. He needed a selling point for his war, and he got one. The only problem was, there is no proof that Hussein had them.

You mean David Kay's extensive finds of materials and equipment to make WMD along with the design and blueprints to do so don't count as proof?

The only thing we've yet to find is the actual finished product. That doesn't mean it isn't out there though (again, my bunkers comment).

Remember, we factually know he had them 5 years ago. We FACTUALLY know that. Now, if he got rid of them, why not come clean and not lose his country?

[Albinonewt]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Collegeboy
Are Iraqis better without Saddam? I do not think you will find one person on the face of this planet that will say no to that. (well maybe a couple)

Provided you stay out of the Democratic side of congress you won't.

Are the Iraqis better without Saddam and with a country designed and built by the US, I think not. For IMO any country built by the US will when it is all said and done not survive, and Iraq will be back to its old shape, just worst. (from civil wars and such, challenging for power, for a government put into power by anyone other then Iraqis will be found lacking in someone's eyes)

Um, you mean like Germany and Japan are now despotic distasters where fundamentalists and pshycos runthrough the streets gassing their own people?

And the Iraqis are writing their own constitution and putting together their own government. The US (and the UN) serve as advisors, but it is their representitives that are putting it together.

This was my objection to the war from the very beginning. I could care less about WMD, or the justification for war, for that could always been stretched or made up, or what ever. Just was war necessary was my objection.

Sooner or later Saddam had to have serious consequences for his defying the resolutions against him. Remember, he signed a cease fire with us, which he violated. That means that our original war was back on. We tried sanctions, but they don't affect Saddam. He'll always have whatever he wants and the people will suffer. That's why he needed to go. Unless the consequence is personal to him it doesn't act as a deterent or a solution.

To those who said that WMD was not the reason we went to war. The public overwhelmingly thought it was the reason, so it was the reason. Doesn't matter if the president only said it once in a speech, it is the reason.

It was a big part of it. A MAJOR part of it. The other reasons are there, but without the threat from the WMD there wasn't a good reason to go in. Good thing we proved he had active WMD programs running.

My question is why Iraq, why now? If we supposedly went into Iraq for humanitarian issues, why not go into N. Korean, why not go into Zimbabwe, why not go into Azerbaijan, or Kazakhstan, why not?

Why did we go into Kosovo or Somalia and not Zimbabwe, Azerbaijan or Kazakhstan?

I can't stand people that argue that. The "If you want to save one starving poor people being tortured by an evil dictator you have to save them all". Why? Why do we have to save everyone? We can't we just save some people? Why is it always on the US to save everyone? Why can't the prescious world community pick up some of the slack and deal with the little dictators, the ones that don't have a large armed forces. We'll deal the big ones if they'll pick off the little ones.

[Albinonewt]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by paintballguy429
Very good point.

If you want to argue about how much of a threat Iraq was to the US (no threat), then why wouldn't Bush be bombing N. Korea?

Becuase Clinton let N. Korea get nuclear weapons and now if we attack them they might let one fly into South Korea or Japan. North Korea will be dealt with, they are most likely next on the list. But because they weren't pre-emptivly dealt with it's tougher now. North Korea PROVES why pre-emptive measures are needed.

Because of 9/11. We needed a scapegoat. First there was the Taliban. That got old, we needed something new. Iraq was perfect. Lead by extreme fundamentalist Muslims, an evil, opressive ruler, and could be easily blamed for 9/11.
North Korea is none of those, therefore Bush can't drum up enough support for an invasion.

Um, you mean we attacked the people that harbored the terrorists that attacked us to kill or remove them for their act of war? And then we attacked a madman with dangereous weapons who violated UN resolutions AND our own cease fire with him? And now you want to know while we were doing that why didn't we get North Korea too?

How big do you think our military is that we can attack every country at the same time? Don't worry about North Korea, they're on the list. Right now we're trying the diplomatic solution just like we tried with Iraq. If it fails, like it did in Iraq, there will be consequences, like there was in Iraq.

After 9/11, the majority of Americans will let Bush do anything without protest, because somehow dissent is unpatriotic and we all know how fashionable patriotism is now.

Nice tag line. I've heard that somewhere before.

There are different kinds of dissent. The kind that normal Americans do "Why go to war?" "Is Saddam a threat?" "Was he involved in 9/11?" is fine, and nobody has a problem with that. The "I hope there are a 1,000 Mogadishues" is unpatriotic. Which doesn't mean he can't say it, but those of us that love our country don't respond well to it.

[Albinonewt]

Originally posted by ERut

Not anymore... approval rating down to 40%

It went as low as 50% the other week and went back up to 56% this week,

[Collegeboy]

Originally posted by Miscue


I think we should have left Saddam alone. So he kills people, and lots of them. Torture, rape, death... this is nothing new. So he has association with terrorists... big whoop. The point is, Bush said that we went in because of WMD... and he is a big liar and fooled us all... and we all know it's because of the oil. There were no WMDs, so we should have never went in. He can keep killing and torturing, and oppressing... that's ok, because he doesn't have WMD's and it is none of our business. It is a FAR worse thing for the US to think that they can remove this... and it is arrogant for them to think that they can make Iraq a better place.

There are no gas-chambers, no mass murder of Jews, no atrocities being committed... you have no proof. This is all stuff the media has cooked up, it's not real. What right does the US have to invade Germany. So Hitler isn't a very nice guy, it's far worse to take over Germany and then try to rebuild it. What right do we have? What arrogance? They are much better off without us.

You see, if Iraq was peachy-keen over night... then there really wouldn't be a whole lot you could criticize about the US's actions. But what people don't get is, that rebuilding a country is not something that happens over night. It takes a long time. But, eventually it can be rebuilt. Rebuilt without tyranny.

And, there wasn't just one reason why we went in. There were a lot of reasons. I don't understand why people forget about these reasons because of an issue with one of them that is yet to be resolved... and doesn't matter anyway.

I'd like to think that in our lifetime, we can go to Iraq to visit and it will be safe there and be very different from when Saddam was in power.

And... I think someday I will have to do that. I'll be able to talk to these people, maybe ask them about how the election is going... or how some leader is doing. And, they'll be able to tell me what they feel without worrying about getting punished.

The day I talk to an Iraqi, who is able to freely tell me that some current elected official is a big dumb jerkface... will be a day when I can think to myself... these anti-war people were completely full of crap just like I knew, and this is proof. If we didn't go in, he would not be allowed the simple freedom of voicing his air-headed, liberal thoughts.

This is what people died for. And someday... nobody will have to die anymore fighting for freedom or being the victim of oppression.

[paintballguy429]

Originally posted by Miscue


I think we should have left Saddam alone. So he kills people, and lots of them. Torture, rape, death... this is nothing new. So he has association with terrorists... big whoop. The point is, Bush said that we went in because of WMD... and he is a big liar and fooled us all... and we all know it's because of the oil. There were no WMDs, so we should have never went in. He can keep killing and torturing, and oppressing... that's ok, because he doesn't have WMD's and it is none of our business. It is a FAR worse thing for the US to think that they can remove this... and it is arrogant for them to think that they can make Iraq a better place.

There are no gas-chambers, no mass murder of Jews, no atrocities being committed... you have no proof. This is all stuff the media has cooked up, it's not real. What right does the US have to invade Germany. So Hitler isn't a very nice guy, it's far worse to take over Germany and then try to rebuild it. What right do we have? What arrogance? They are much better off without us.

You see, if Iraq was peachy-keen over night... then there really wouldn't be a whole lot you could criticize about the US's actions. But what people don't get is, that rebuilding a country is not something that happens over night. It takes a long time. But, eventually it can be rebuilt. Rebuilt without tyranny.

And, there wasn't just one reason why we went in. There were a lot of reasons. I don't understand why people forget about these reasons because of an issue with one of them that is yet to be resolved... and doesn't matter anyway.

I'd like to think that in our lifetime, we can go to Iraq to visit and it will be safe there and be very different from when Saddam was in power.

And... I think someday I will have to do that. I'll be able to talk to these people, maybe ask them about how the election is going... or how some leader is doing. And, they'll be able to tell me what they feel without worrying about getting punished.

The day I talk to an Iraqi, who is able to freely tell me that some current elected official is a big dumb jerkface... will be a day when I can think to myself... these anti-war people were completely full of crap just like I knew, and this is proof. If we didn't go in, he would not be allowed the simple freedom of voicing his air-headed, liberal thoughts.

This is what people died for. And someday... nobody will have to die anymore fighting for freedom or being the victim of oppression.

So the US should essentially act as the world's cop?

Oh, and if you study history at all, Nazi Germany declared war on the US before the US declared war on them

Not to mention that the Nazis were in the process of invading multiple countries when we got involved with WWII.
Iraq has not invaded anyone for more than 10 years, the same can't be said for the US.

[paintballguy429]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Albinonewt

Originally posted by paintballguy429
Very good point.

If you want to argue about how much of a threat Iraq was to the US (no threat), then why wouldn't Bush be bombing N. Korea?

Becuase Clinton let N. Korea get nuclear weapons and now if we attack them they might let one fly into South Korea or Japan. North Korea will be dealt with, they are most likely next on the list. But because they weren't pre-emptivly dealt with it's tougher now. North Korea PROVES why pre-emptive measures are needed.

Because of 9/11. We needed a scapegoat. First there was the Taliban. That got old, we needed something new. Iraq was perfect. Lead by extreme fundamentalist Muslims, an evil, opressive ruler, and could be easily blamed for 9/11.
North Korea is none of those, therefore Bush can't drum up enough support for an invasion.

Um, you mean we attacked the people that harbored the terrorists that attacked us to kill or remove them for their act of war? And then we attacked a madman with dangereous weapons who violated UN resolutions AND our own cease fire with him? And now you want to know while we were doing that why didn't we get North Korea too?

How big do you think our military is that we can attack every country at the same time? Don't worry about North Korea, they're on the list. Right now we're trying the diplomatic solution just like we tried with Iraq. If it fails, like it did in Iraq, there will be consequences, like there was in Iraq.

After 9/11, the majority of Americans will let Bush do anything without protest, because somehow dissent is unpatriotic and we all know how fashionable patriotism is now.

Nice tag line. I've heard that somewhere before.

There are different kinds of dissent. The kind that normal Americans do "Why go to war?" "Is Saddam a threat?" "Was he involved in 9/11?" is fine, and nobody has a problem with that. The "I hope there are a 1,000 Mogadishues" is unpatriotic. Which doesn't mean he can't say it, but those of us that love our country don't respond well to it.

I already know why Bush didn't invade North Korea. I explained it. I do not want him to. As for these dangerous madmen with weapons-we have supported Israel for years in their genocide against the Palestinians. They have a very extensive nuclear arsenal, most of which was developed by money we gave them.

I am not at all a fan of Hussein, he contradicts everything I believe in and was a sick, murderous ruler. In my opinion, this is not justificatoion to send thousands of kids out to kill and die, and then offer false reasoning (WOMD) as to why hundreds of Americans and over 3,000 Iraqis have been killed.

[paintballguy429]

Originally posted by ERut

Not anymore... approval rating down to 40%

This week I heard 56.

He needs this war not only for the mainstream public but to appease the hardcore right-wing.

He's got an election in a little over a year and if he doesn't kiss up to the extremists he will lose votes out to the farther right voters (like Gore losing votes to Nader).

[shartley]

[paintballguy429]

Originally posted by shartley

I never said it was, I said it was the primary justification for the war by the Bushies.

If you would like to explain why you think we attacked them, please do.