NationStates Jolt Archive

You know, I have repeatedly defended President Bush against the left on Iraq, even though I think he should have waited until the U.N. inspections were over. I don't believe he went in there for oil. We didn't go in there for imperialist or financial reasons. We went in there because he bought the Wolfowitz-Cheney analysis that the Iraqis would be better off, we could shake up the authoritarian Arab regimes in the Middle East, and our leverage to make peace between the Palestinians and Israelis would be increased.

At the moment the U.N. inspectors were kicked out in '98, this is the proper language: there were substantial quantities of botulinum and aflatoxin, as I recall, some bioagents, I believe there were those, and VX and ricin, chemical agents, unaccounted for. Keep in mind, that's all we ever had to work on. We also thought there were a few missiles, some warheads, and maybe a very limited amount of nuclear laboratory capacity.

After 9/11, let's be fair here, if you had been President, you'd think, Well, this fellow bin Laden just turned these three airplanes full of fuel into weapons of mass destruction, right? Arguably they were super-powerful chemical weapons. Think about it that way. So, you're sitting there as President, you're reeling in the aftermath of this, so, yeah, you want to go get bin Laden and do Afghanistan and all that. But you also have to say, Well, my first responsibility now is to try everything possible to make sure that this terrorist network and other terrorist networks cannot reach chemical and biological weapons or small amounts of fissile material. I've got to do that.

That pretty well sums up my thoughts on the matter.

Ok, Clinton isn't all bad. :wink:

I have to agree with the statements! Clinton actually came to Bush's defense. That I never expected to see.

It's funny. Clinton finally did something right, even if it was after his presidency.

Oh, dear! Has a third of the seas turned to blood? Is Wormwood falling?

Seriously, now, I must take severe offence to one comment here.

Well, this fellow bin Laden just turned these three airplanes full of fuel into weapons of mass destruction, right? Arguably they were super-powerful chemical weapons.

Ohmgwhuttif! No, no, no! They're not super-powerful chemical weapons! If these are chemical weapons, then the U.S. as well as every other bloody nation on Earth has been using super-powerful chemical weapons for quite some time now. Bombs explode via a chemical reaction. Bullets are propelled by chemical explosions.

For any ex-Presidents that haven't quite figured this 'Weapon of Mass Destruction' thing out: A chemical weapon is something akin to mustard or sarin gas, or LSD in the reservoir, something that affects a great number of people by sheer chemicality alone. Things that use chemicals are NOT chemical weapons in the WMD sense.

And this is laying aside the fact that there wasn't a lot of mass involved here. Conventional weapons can easily kill three thousand if you toss them into crowded places. Weapons of MASS destruction are the sort that depopulate cities.

Well...that would make guns chemical weapons...as well as bombs, missiles, and anything basicaly modern that uses some sort of propellant...I guess knives are as well, since they usualy have a plastic and/or rubber handle...

Well, this fellow bin Laden just turned these three airplanes full of fuel into weapons of mass destruction, right? Arguably they were super-powerful chemical weapons.

Ohmgwhuttif! No, no, no! They're not super-powerful chemical weapons! If these are chemical weapons, then the U.S. as well as every other bloody nation on Earth has been using super-powerful chemical weapons for quite some time now.

Yeah, guess what, they have. A chemical reaction is the only thing required to make something a chemical weapon. Furthermore, it must be this reaction which causes the damage, rather than having it cause another reaction which causes the damage, such as a projectile weapon. Guns are not chemical weapons, but bombs are. And much of the damage caused by the planes used in the WTC attacks was caused by the large explosions that resulted from the fuel-laden airplanes, not just the actual impact.

And this is laying aside the fact that there wasn't a lot of mass involved here. Conventional weapons can easily kill three thousand if you toss them into crowded places. Weapons of MASS destruction are the sort that depopulate cities.

Incorrect. Many chemical weapons are sometimes called WMD, but most of them could not destroy a city unless present in substantial amounts and using very advanced dispersal techniques. Most chemical weapons are on a small enough scale that they could not cause very much damage, but that just means that increasing the amount of chemicals involved would turn the weapon into a WMD.

Besides, I'm not sure why exactly you took offense at that statement, as it is easily one of the least important in the entire section. I only included it to preserve the integrity of his statements, not to make any point about what defines something as a WMD.

TP

DP

My question is: where are the WMD's now?

My question is: where are the WMD's now?

That's irrelevant as to whether or not it was right to go in, especially if your opinion is based upon Clinton's statements. Before deciding whether or not it was a mistake to invade, you have to consider whether or not we were rational in doing so in the first place. And even if we never find WMD, as long as it was reasonable to take the actions we took, it doesn't matter whether it ended in failure or not from an ethical standpoint. Too many people judge an action by whether or not it succeeds or fails. The most important thing to consider is whether or not it was justified by the facts and analyses availible at the time.

Well, the UN weapons inspectors said there were no weapons of mass destruction. George Bush refused to believe them and invaded Iraq. Now it is a mess.

Proof that violence never solves anything.

http://www.archives.gov/research_room/research_topics/world_war_2_photos/images/ww2_82.jpg
Proof that diplomacy only goes so far.

I agree with Temme. Stop wars, dont create new ones!!

Remember where Saddam got his mustard gas and other chemical weapons from in the 70's? United States.

If some government is CURRENTLY using chemical weapons it is in my opinion, a good thing to stop that. Even with war. But no war should be taken as lightly as Bush, Rumsfeld and Wolfovits took this one. They did not convince people in europe. But in United States they did, because people are conservative and loyal.

Okay, Saddam was a tyrann: even though he didn't commit mass murders after using his chemicals(mustard gas doesnt necessarily kill, but produces fire damage-alike wounds on people. That looks nasty, believe me), but how good are you mr. Bush?

You let death penalties stay, dont take care of your worst-off citizens and prisons in your country are overpopulated by young people. You have done much more agains than for, the environment. After this you wage war for oil. Lets just face it, even if you find a little amount of mustard gas somewhere you hardly kill more than 10 people with whats left of it.
Furthermore, you show gas masks and empty chemical tanks found in iraq on worldwide tv like that was any progress to your cause. Of course there are chemical tanks, because Saddam used chemicals in the PAST!! And gas masks are a way to protect yourself from chemicals, NOTHING MORE.

I saw those barrels on tv and if mr. Bush finds a full one, does that mean anything? Saddam hasn't used chemical weapons at least 13 years and allowed UK to come and check this knowledge. What would have made him use one in that situation? I think war. But it didn't.

So you kill your people and iraqis for oil. Ok. Why you just don't sey so? Because reputation is too important and I wonder what god has to do with your war? Im not a christian but know what fourth order is. So I wonder how you can be so moralist you are by telling everyone how good christian you are but still you accept death penalty. You need a concience, because apparently you dont have one.
I have interesting numbers too. 250 million people in US, 6000 million people in world. Still, 40% of worlds military power lies in US. And currently growing bigger because apparently you need more oil than social welfare or public education. And you are proud of that. You think that people who born poor must die poor too?? In your country yes. You dont bother think that your country has more inner problems than the total
Eastern Europe?

I see you the biggest criminal, and crime is abuse of power. No one is in position to judge you more than you are others.

If you are re-elected you can cut military funding and put some in social welfare, healthcare and education. It it an alternative.


Just my point of view.

I agree with Temme. Stop wars, dont create new ones!!

Remember where Saddam got his mustard gas and other chemical weapons from in the 70's? United States.

If some government is CURRENTLY using chemical weapons it is in my opinion, a good thing to stop that. Even with war. But no war should be taken as lightly as Bush, Rumsfeld and Wolfovits took this one. They did not convince people in europe. But in United States they did, because people are conservative and loyal.

Okay, Saddam was a tyrann: even though he didn't commit mass murders after using his chemicals(mustard gas doesnt necessarily kill, but produces fire damage-alike wounds on people. That looks nasty, believe me), but how good are you mr. Bush?

You let death penalties stay, dont take care of your worst-off citizens and prisons in your country are overpopulated by young people. You have done much more agains than for, the environment. After this you wage war for oil. Lets just face it, even if you find a little amount of mustard gas somewhere you hardly kill more than 10 people with whats left of it.
Furthermore, you show gas masks and empty chemical tanks found in iraq on worldwide tv like that was any progress to your cause. Of course there are chemical tanks, because Saddam used chemicals in the PAST!! And gas masks are a way to protect yourself from chemicals, NOTHING MORE.

I saw those barrels on tv and if mr. Bush finds a full one, does that mean anything? Saddam hasn't used chemical weapons at least 13 years and allowed UK to come and check this knowledge. What would have made him use one in that situation? I think war. But it didn't.

So you kill your people and iraqis for oil. Ok. Why you just don't sey so? Because reputation is too important and I wonder what god has to do with your war? Im not a christian but know what fourth order is. So I wonder how you can be so moralist you are by telling everyone how good christian you are but still you accept death penalty. You need a concience, because apparently you dont have one.
I have interesting numbers too. 250 million people in US, 6000 million people in world. Still, 40% of worlds military power lies in US. And currently growing bigger because apparently you need more oil than social welfare or public education. And you are proud of that. You think that people who born poor must die poor too?? In your country yes. You dont bother think that your country has more inner problems than the total
Eastern Europe?

I see you the biggest criminal, and crime is abuse of power. No one is in position to judge you more than you are others.

If you are re-elected you can cut military funding and put some in social welfare, healthcare and education. It it an alternative.


Just my point of view.

I agree with Temme. Stop wars, dont create new ones!!

Remember where Saddam got his mustard gas and other chemical weapons from in the 70's? United States.

If some government is CURRENTLY using chemical weapons it is in my opinion, a good thing to stop that. Even with war. But no war should be taken as lightly as Bush, Rumsfeld and Wolfovits took this one. They did not convince people in europe. But in United States they did, because people are conservative and loyal.

Okay, Saddam was a tyrann: even though he didn't commit mass murders after using his chemicals(mustard gas doesnt necessarily kill, but produces fire damage-alike wounds on people. That looks nasty, believe me), but how good are you mr. Bush?

You let death penalties stay, dont take care of your worst-off citizens and prisons in your country are overpopulated by young people. You have done much more agains than for, the environment. After this you wage war for oil. Lets just face it, even if you find a little amount of mustard gas somewhere you hardly kill more than 10 people with whats left of it.
Furthermore, you show gas masks and empty chemical tanks found in iraq on worldwide tv like that was any progress to your cause. Of course there are chemical tanks, because Saddam used chemicals in the PAST!! And gas masks are a way to protect yourself from chemicals, NOTHING MORE.

I saw those barrels on tv and if mr. Bush finds a full one, does that mean anything? Saddam hasn't used chemical weapons at least 13 years and allowed UK to come and check this knowledge. What would have made him use one in that situation? I think war. But it didn't.

So you kill your people and iraqis for oil. Ok. Why you just don't sey so? Because reputation is too important and I wonder what god has to do with your war? Im not a christian but know what fourth order is. So I wonder how you can be so moralist you are by telling everyone how good christian you are but still you accept death penalty. You need a concience, because apparently you dont have one.
I have interesting numbers too. 250 million people in US, 6000 million people in world. Still, 40% of worlds military power lies in US. And currently growing bigger because apparently you need more oil than social welfare or public education. And you are proud of that. You think that people who born poor must die poor too?? In your country yes. You dont bother think that your country has more inner problems than the total
Eastern Europe?

I see you the biggest criminal, and crime is abuse of power. No one is in position to judge you more than you are others.

If you are re-elected you can cut military funding and put some in social welfare, healthcare and education. It it an alternative.


Just my point of view.

My question is: where are the WMD's now?

The answer is:

SYRIA

Well, 'offence' may not be the correct word. It is certainly irritating, though.

While bombs are chemical weapons, technically, the context was referring to non-conventional weapons, such as poison gas.

And don't pull the 'We had to go in to depose an evil dictator' scam. The U.S. has propped up, supported, or installed countless dictators just as evil during the Cold War. If you're going to deal with them all now, you have quite the job before you.

My question is: where are the WMD's now?

The answer is:

SYRIAoh is that going to be the next country Bush is gonna lie about to start another unjust war in? I thought it was gonna be Iran

WTH? When did this thread become about this idea that 'We had to go in to depose an evil dictator'? Reread the original post. That is the entirety of what this thread is about. If you agree with those statements, state why, and the same goes for if you disagree. And, for that matter, the original post, which is a quote by ex-President Clinton himself, said that he does not believe that the Iraq war was about oil, and he has little or nothing to gain by saying so. Stop using that oil slogan already!

WTH? When did this thread become about this idea that 'We had to go in to depose an evil dictator'? Reread the original post. That is the entirety of what this thread is about. If you agree with those statements, state why, and the same goes for if you disagree. And, for that matter, the original post, which is a quote by ex-President Clinton himself, said that he does not believe that the Iraq war was about oil, and he has little or nothing to gain by saying so. Stop using that oil slogan already!it may not only be about oil but oil definietly plays a major role--it has nothing to do with overthrowing an evil dictator--that theory makes no sense at all

How many times do people need to hear this. Whatever Iraq was about, it wasn't 9/11. Iraq had no links to 9/11.

I think Clinton might personally think differently.. he's just trying to be a good ex-president.. it's usual for former presidents not to bad mouth sitting presidents.. or any presidents for that matter.

How many times do people need to hear this. Whatever Iraq was about, it wasn't 9/11. Iraq had no links to 9/11.

I think Clinton might personally think differently.. he's just trying to be a good ex-president.. it's usual for former presidents not to bad mouth sitting presidents.. or any presidents for that matter.

Steph for the first 2 years Clinton has done nothing but hammer President Bush! Now, he is acting like a good Former President? Sorry. I actually believe what this guy says for once.

As for oil, Clinton says it wasn't for oil so now your arguement is getting shredded by Clinton.

As for the link to 9/11, if he did have that link, even though bush has said repeatedly that he wasn't DIRECTLY involved countless times, we would've gone in sooner and with UN Backing. He did have terror links and was a big supporter of terror,most notably the Terror Groups trying to get rid of Israel.

How many times do people need to hear this. Whatever Iraq was about, it wasn't 9/11. Iraq had no links to 9/11.

I think Clinton might personally think differently.. he's just trying to be a good ex-president.. it's usual for former presidents not to bad mouth sitting presidents.. or any presidents for that matter.

Steph for the first 2 years Clinton has done nothing but hammer President Bush! Now, he is acting like a good Former President? Sorry. I actually believe what this guy says for once.

As for oil, Clinton says it wasn't for oil so now your arguement is getting shredded by Clinton.

As for the link to 9/11, if he did have that link, even though bush has said repeatedly that he wasn't DIRECTLY involved countless times, we would've gone in sooner and with UN Backing. He did have terror links and was a big supporter of terror,most notably the Terror Groups trying to get rid of Israel.

I have news for you young miss.. I have never said this war was about oil.. in fact, I have always maintained it had far more to do with the PNAC doctrine. There is a geopolitical reason, Only the far left kooks are saying it's about oil, I'm not one of them. I'm actually only socially liberal, I'm in fact quite a moderate conservative when it comes to economics.

Thus Clinton didn't destroy any of my arguments.. also you have your facts wrong, please source me once when Clinton has bashed Bush on Iraq? I don't think you can, because he never did so.

There is this little thing called research, now while you won't always get as good info as if you actually picked up a book, the net still provides some accurate information. You just have to be careful what you source. Make sure it's fair.. and no, I'm not talking about Fox news..and your parents don't count either. At least as far as debate goes.

As for the war in Iraq, it was a horribly bad policy. The war should of focused on Al Qaeda. In case you haven't noticed, the war on terror is being lost at the moment. Mostly because of Iraq. If you'd like to get into an in-depth conversation about this, I suggest you check your bias at the door and we could discuss it, but I refuse to discuss it with some one who is close-minded as I have said before. If you wish to look at cold hard facts, policy decision.. then fine if not. I'm not wasting my time.

P.S. I got your telegram.. ;)

I gathered you did and I was hoping you did which is why I said what I did about Clinton! I knew he never did and I was hoping you see it and respond. Thank you.

It was actually Clinton's VP that has been doing the bashing of the Bush Administration. As for this source, I watched some of his speech on TV! :wink:

As for the oil comment, that wasn't directed at you but someone else who made a point that is was about oil. I actually answered 3 posts in one post just without all the quotes. Sorry if this caused confusion.

As for it being bad policy, the latest poll that I"VE SEEN, said that it was right for us to into Iraq. There is still support for it but I will admit that support is slipping mostly because of all the terror attacks going on. I have to say that i'm not thrilled with it myself because it makes me worry about my father more and more but I know he's ok and I hope he stays that way. It very well might be bad policy but the people are still behind it but for how much longer is beyond me and I'm not afraid to admit this!

I gathered you did and I was hoping you did which is why I said what I did about Clinton! I knew he never did and I was hoping you see it and respond. Thank you.

It was actually Clinton's VP that has been doing the bashing of the Bush Administration. As for this source, I watched some of his speech on TV! :wink:

As for the oil comment, that wasn't directed at you but someone else who made a point that is was about oil. I actually answered 3 posts in one post just without all the quotes. Sorry if this caused confusion.

As for it being bad policy, the latest poll that I"VE SEEN, said that it was right for us to into Iraq. There is still support for it but I will admit that support is slipping mostly because of all the terror attacks going on. I have to say that i'm not thrilled with it myself because it makes me worry about my father more and more but I know he's ok and I hope he stays that way. It very well might be bad policy but the people are still behind it but for how much longer is beyond me and I'm not afraid to admit this!

Latest polls I have seen CNN/Time poll says that 44% agree with Bush on Iraq, while 55% don't, which is up from May.. when only 40% agreed. It's still not good. Plus Bush's approval rating is below 50%, at around 47% I believe, which is not the magic number to be elected for an incumbent. The history of the elections since 1939 suggest that 6/5 months before an election if you're not above 50% in job approval you don't get elected. History is not on Bush's side.

I gathered you did and I was hoping you did which is why I said what I did about Clinton! I knew he never did and I was hoping you see it and respond. Thank you.

It was actually Clinton's VP that has been doing the bashing of the Bush Administration. As for this source, I watched some of his speech on TV! :wink:

As for the oil comment, that wasn't directed at you but someone else who made a point that is was about oil. I actually answered 3 posts in one post just without all the quotes. Sorry if this caused confusion.

As for it being bad policy, the latest poll that I"VE SEEN, said that it was right for us to into Iraq. There is still support for it but I will admit that support is slipping mostly because of all the terror attacks going on. I have to say that i'm not thrilled with it myself because it makes me worry about my father more and more but I know he's ok and I hope he stays that way. It very well might be bad policy but the people are still behind it but for how much longer is beyond me and I'm not afraid to admit this!

Latest polls I have seen CNN/Time poll says that 44% agree with Bush on Iraq, while 55% don't, which is up from May.. when only 40% agreed. It's still not good. Plus Bush's approval rating is below 50%, at around 47% I believe, which is not the magic number to be elected for an incumbent. The history of the elections since 1939 suggest that 6/5 months before an election if you're not above 50% in job approval you don't get elected. History is not on Bush's side.

I did say the poll I've seen which was only about 2 hours ago! LOL

It showed that support for Iraq has dropped but still a majority support it! Also shows that Bush has a 7 point lead over Kerry 47-40 with Nader at 3%!

This same poll has over 60% of the people stating that we were right to go into Iraq and Afghanistan in the War on Terror!. That was the poll I saw. All Polls are different and we know that. Not questioning CNN/Time poll just stating what I saw.

You are right about history though. However, history can be bucked and Kerry's numbers are bad in many areas including trustworthyness 42-31 in favor of Bush!

You can't claim the Iraq war was bad policy until it has either failed or succeeded. So far, it has done neither. Stop trying to measure the conflict in a month-by-month analysis. Global conflicts just don't work that way. It could be a year before we really have a good idea about what has and has not worked in Iraq. At least wait until the transfer of power (and wait and see how that turns out) before passing any judgment! I'm not saying that the new provisional government is likely to be a great success, but once again it is just another stepping stone to local autonomy. The point of the transfer of power is to get Iraqis involved in preparing their country for free elections. That is the only benchmark of success or failure in Iraq: will they be able to have free elections?

You can't claim the Iraq war was bad policy until it has either failed or succeeded. So far, it has done neither. Stop trying to measure the conflict in a month-by-month analysis. Global conflicts just don't work that way. It could be a year before we really have a good idea about what has and has not worked in Iraq. At least wait until the transfer of power (and wait and see how that turns out) before passing any judgment! I'm not saying that the new provisional government is likely to be a great success, but once again it is just another stepping stone to local autonomy. The point of the transfer of power is to get Iraqis involved in preparing their country for free elections. That is the only benchmark of success or failure in Iraq: will they be able to have free elections?

You are right Lenbonia. Some people jump to immediate conclusions when things go sour. Yes there are attacks in Iraq but that was expected, just not like this. However, they are no improvising defenses to better ward off such things.

You can't claim the Iraq war was bad policy until it has either failed or succeeded. So far, it has done neither. Stop trying to measure the conflict in a month-by-month analysis. Global conflicts just don't work that way. It could be a year before we really have a good idea about what has and has not worked in Iraq. At least wait until the transfer of power (and wait and see how that turns out) before passing any judgment! I'm not saying that the new provisional government is likely to be a great success, but once again it is just another stepping stone to local autonomy. The point of the transfer of power is to get Iraqis involved in preparing their country for free elections. That is the only benchmark of success or failure in Iraq: will they be able to have free elections?

When expert after expert after expert has come out and said it was bad policy and I agree with them, then I most certainly can say it was bad policy. It was bad policy because Bush dropped the ball on the war on terror and in his side venture (Iraq) he has done nothing but made Iraq the poster child for recruiting more terrorists. This war can't be fought by the military alone. In fact most of it must be fought through diplomacy. Because the objective is to change the way people in Islamic countries feel about the west. Not to have them believe that the west is against Islam, they can spout it all they like, but actions speak louder then words.. and the message Islamic countries are getting right now about the west is not favorable. When 56% of Iraqi's believe that all Americans are like those who committed abuse in the prison, that's not a good sign. There is over 1 billion Muslims, you can't win a war against these people by military action, unless you plan on making a parking lot out the entire middle east. It was bad policy.

P.S. Don't mistake political pundits for "experts"

DP

Have I ever said it was a *great* policy? Within the strategic framework you described, ie the War on Terror, it may have been a mistake. I lean towards that direction myself, although I am not ready to claim that it has beenw ithout merits. However, my point was that a bad policy (bad meaning not all that helpful in fighting terrorism) does not have to be a failure. If our policy in Iraq succeeds, it may have numerous other benefits that are not related to the War on Terror, but are nevertheless useful in the context of overall Middle Eastern policy.