NationStates Jolt Archive

Big deal. Bottom line is, Saddam Hussain still wasn't the nicest guy and the world is a better place without him. Of course that war costs us, Americans, a lot, but there is absolutely no need for other nations to bitch, especially since we did all the dirty work, and took 90% of the costs ourselves.

wait....so the war only cost America?

must have dreamt that "coalition of the willing"

The deal is that that was the reason for the war, and it was wrong. They go on about how we are bringing democracy to the ME but thats not why we went there we went there b/c of the nonexistant WMD.

wait....so the war only cost America?

must have dreamt that "coalition of the willing"
According to George W. Bush (who I admit, lies a lot), 90% of financial and life cost was American. 2nd highest was Britain, everyone else's contribution was a joke.

According to George W. Bush (who I admit, lies a lot), 90$ of financial and monetary cost was American. 2nd highest was Britain, everyone else's contribution was a joke.
even Poland?

According to George W. Bush (who I admit, lies a lot), 90$ of financial and monetary cost was American. 2nd highest was Britain, everyone else's contribution was a joke.


I realize you must have missed the percentage sign, but that was still kinda funny. Anyway, there are far more dead Iraqis than dead Americans... Just so I'm not completely off topic.

I realize you must have missed the percentage sign, but that was still kinda funny. Anyway, there are far more dead Iraqis than dead Americans... Just so I'm not completely off topic.
There were actually two embarassing mistakes there. Both fixed.

even Poland?
Come on.. how many Poland troops were really there?

Big deal. Bottom line is, Saddam Hussain still wasn't the nicest guy and the world is a better place without him. Of course that war costs us, Americans, a lot, but there is absolutely no need for other nations to bitch, especially since we did all the dirty work, and took 90% of the costs ourselves.

I personally agree that Saddam is not the nicest guy in the world. I am not certain his removal has really improved things for the average Iraqi though.
And I do wonder why the USA should have the right to decide who is naughty and who is nice...

I personally agree that Saddam is not the nicest guy in the world. I am not certain his removal has really improved things for the average Iraqi though.
And I do wonder why the USA should have the right to decide who is naughty and who is nice...
Cause we're bossy, and we got enough economic and military power to do so ;)

I personally agree that Saddam is not the nicest guy in the world. I am not certain his removal has really improved things for the average Iraqi though.

Because everyone knows systemized torture and mass graves are fun! :rolleyes:

And true, our goal was to find WMD that we know did exist, but may or may not have existed at the time of war. However, just because a war accomplishes something other than its original aim does not make it illegitimate.

Example: Lincoln fought the Civil War to preserve the Union, not to free the slaves. Allow me to paraphrase: "If I could keep the Union intact and free none of the slaves, I would do so. If I could keep the Union intact by freeing all the slaves, I would do so. If I could keep the Union intact by freeing some slaves and not others, I would do so without hesitation."

By modern liberal logic, the end of slavery on the North American continent was an illegitimate act because it was not the original goal of the war.

Think about that for a while.

Come on.. how many Poland troops were really there?
Well Bush made such a big deal about it during the debates I just thought it ought to be mentioned.

Because everyone knows systemized torture and mass graves are fun! :rolleyes:

And true, our goal was to find WMD that we know did exist, but may or may not have existed at the time of war. However, just because a war accomplishes something other than its original aim does not make it illegitimate.

Example: Lincoln fought the Civil War to preserve the Union, not to free the slaves. Allow me to paraphrase: "If I could keep the Union intact and free none of the slaves, I would do so. If I could keep the Union intact by freeing all the slaves, I would do so. If I could keep the Union intact by freeing some slaves and not others, I would do so without hesitation."

By modern liberal logic, the end of slavery on the North American continent was an illegitimate act because it was not the original goal of the war.

Think about that for a while.
Yes but he acomplished the original purpose to, so its a completly diferent situation.

Yes but he acomplished the original purpose to, so its a completly diferent situation.

Completely different? How so? True, Lincoln accomplished his original goal, but what I said still has bearing.

Because everyone knows systemized torture and mass graves are fun! :rolleyes:

Yes - those were the downsides. Now look at the upsides of the Saddam regime. Like security. Being able to walk the streets without being mugged or raped. Like the trash being picked up with regular intervals. Ideals are nice, but in practice most people care more for those things. On average the Iraqi citizens might have been better off under Saddams rules. There were just some individuals that were WAY worse off. For that reason my gut says to support the invasion. But my brain says my gut should not be in charge.

WMD were not the only reason we went to war. The humanitarian goals were there from the beginning. As was the goal of trying to make it look like the UN actually meant what it said. And they have found traces of poison gas that the American media didn't report. And we know for a fact that Saddam had the stuff because he used it on the Kurds. So don't give me that "He didn't have any WMD" stuff. Because he did.

Being able to walk the streets without being mugged or raped.

Yes, common criminals didn't do that in Iraq. The government did not want competition.

As for the security argument, I quote Benjamin Franklin. "Those who would sacrifice personal freedom for temporary security deserve niether freedom nor security."

Yes, common criminals didn't do that in Iraq. The government did not want competition.

As for the security argument, I quote Benjamin Franklin. "Those who would sacrifice personal freedom for temporary security deserve niether freedom nor security."
Remind abou that Act Bush asked to have pased, it began with a p?

And we know for a fact that Saddam had the stuff because he used it on the Kurds. So don't give me that "He didn't have any WMD" stuff. Because he did.
No one ever said he never had any WMD, what was said was that he didn't have WMD at the time of the declaration of war. Most people who were against the war make the case that UN inspections were working to prevent him from getting WMD.

WMD were not the only reason we went to war. The humanitarian goals were there from the beginning. As was the goal of trying to make it look like the UN actually meant what it said. And they have found traces of poison gas that the American media didn't report. And we know for a fact that Saddam had the stuff because he used it on the Kurds. So don't give me that "He didn't have any WMD" stuff. Because he did.

Humanitarian goals? Trying to give the UN credence? That's a joke right? Maybe the American media didn't report the gas because it wasn't there, they'd splash it all over the front page if they had that. And you're right, Sadaam did have WMD, we know that because that nice Mister Rumsfield gave some of it to him.

1.) The Halabdja gassing (the one where Kurds died) may not have been committed by Hussein.

2.) It happened during the Iran-Iraq war - the weapons that were used during that war were largely supplied by the US to Iraq.

3.) The gas that was used there was reportedly not owned by Iraq, but by Iran.

4.) "Nationbuilding" and "regime change" are forbidden in international law. No nation in the world has the right to barge into other sovereign nations and mess around in them.

5.) The big and most worrying disaster of the Iraq war was the fact that the US broke the UN charter and have since broken the Geneva conventions, Human Rights laws and the rule of law in their own country, betraying the ideals of democracy. If the US had had the permission by the UN security council, it would have been no problem. Many countries based their participation on exactly this - a resolution enabling the US to do this war, from the UNSC. i.e. Germany would have helped, if the UN had given the US permission, which was not the case and resolution 1441 was not a war-enabling resolution and the older ones from the first gulf war, would have had to be reactivated for this to be based on them. In any case, the US have ignored the UN and acted in typical imperialist fashion, which is totally unacceptable. Always remember that the ends do not justify the means!

Ein Deutscher']1.) The Halabdja gassing (the one where Kurds died) may not have been committed by Hussein.

2.) It happened during the Iran-Iraq war - the weapons that were used during that war were largely supplied by the US to Iraq.

3.) The gas that was used there was reportedly not owned by Iraq, but by Iran.

4.) "Nationbuilding" and "regime change" are forbidden in international law. No nation in the world has the right to barge into other sovereign nations and mess around in them.

5.) The big and most worrying disaster of the Iraq war was the fact that the US broke the UN charter and have since broken the Geneva conventions, Human Rights laws and the rule of law in their own country, betraying the ideals of democracy. If the US had had the permission by the UN security council, it would have been no problem. Many countries based their participation on exactly this - a resolution enabling the US to do this war, from the UNSC. i.e. Germany would have helped, if the UN had given the US permission, which was not the case and resolution 1441 was not a war-enabling resolution and the older ones from the first gulf war, would have had to be reactivated for this to be based on them. In any case, the US have ignored the UN and acted in typical imperialist fashion, which is totally unacceptable. Always remember that the ends do not justify the means!

International law, *shrugs* so easy to break one might think it has no real validity. Hey UN, kiss my big hairy butt.

Remind abou that Act Bush asked to have pased, it began with a p?

Remind me about when I said I support the Patriot Act. Oh, that's right, I don't. Nevermind.

And Ein Deutscher, international is "upheld" by the U.N., a group of self-righteous dictatorships telling decent democratic nations what to do. when faced with problems such as the genocide in Sudan, they do nothing. They have no moral authority to tell America what to do when we're the ones trying to fix the problems. I'm not saying we're fixing them in the right order, or even at all. What I am saying is that the UN cannot tell us what to do. Lie it or not, that's the way it is.

Remind me about when I said I support the Patriot Act. Oh, that's right, I don't. Nevermind.

And Ein Deutscher, international is "upheld" by the U.N., a group of self-righteous dictatorships telling decent democratic nations what to do. when faced with problems such as the genocide in Sudan, they do nothing. They have no moral authority to tell America what to do when we're the ones trying to fix the problems. I'm not saying we're fixing them in the right order, or even at all. What I am saying is that the UN cannot tell us what to do. Lie it or not, that's the way it is.

This is why the rest of the world gets so pissed off at the Americans. Apperently, just because you disagree with another Nations value system is an excuse bomb them into the ground. As to the "even though we didn't find WMD, we helped people" argument, thats roughly the same as police raiding your house in search of something you shouldn't have, not finding it, killing off the owner because they didn't like the way he ran the household, and then claiming that they have done something that is ok! It's absurd that anyone could even come up with such an argument, let alone beleive it. But, what if the cops didn't even have a warrent? Wouldn't they be fired, in the outpouring of public anger? I wish it were so...

As to the "even though we didn't find WMD, we helped people" argument, thats roughly the same as police raiding your house in search of something you shouldn't have, not finding it, killing off the owner because they didn't like the way he ran the household, and then claiming that they have done something that is ok! It's absurd that anyone could even come up with such an argument, let alone beleive it.

No, it's not at all the same thing. The scenario you described is bad all-aorund. As for Iraq, yes it's chaotic, but it's getting better and the people are free and have taken part in the first free election in that nation's history. Your analogy, to be quite honest, does not correlate at all to the situation.

This is why the rest of the world gets so pissed off at the Americans. Apperently, just because you disagree with another Nations value system is an excuse bomb them into the ground. As to the "even though we didn't find WMD, we helped people" argument, thats roughly the same as police raiding your house in search of something you shouldn't have, not finding it, killing off the owner because they didn't like the way he ran the household, and then claiming that they have done something that is ok! It's absurd that anyone could even come up with such an argument, let alone beleive it. But, what if the cops didn't even have a warrent? Wouldn't they be fired, in the outpouring of public anger? I wish it were so...
Don't make it sound like Iraq was a regular country. US wasn't the only country that recognized the poor government in Iraq. Even Chiraq couldn't have liked Saddam, even though Chiraq is on Fundamentalist Muslims' ass every day.

haha, you're the reason why everyone hates our country. the war affects a lot more people than just us my friend.

Because everyone knows systemized torture and mass graves are fun! :rolleyes:

And true, our goal was to find WMD that we know did exist, but may or may not have existed at the time of war. However, just because a war accomplishes something other than its original aim does not make it illegitimate.

Example: Lincoln fought the Civil War to preserve the Union, not to free the slaves. Allow me to paraphrase: "If I could keep the Union intact and free none of the slaves, I would do so. If I could keep the Union intact by freeing all the slaves, I would do so. If I could keep the Union intact by freeing some slaves and not others, I would do so without hesitation."

By modern liberal logic, the end of slavery on the North American continent was an illegitimate act because it was not the original goal of the war.

Think about that for a while.

Perhaps you should think about it a bit more.

The trigger of the war was the battle over the expansion of slavery into new states. (And an underlying conflict between the slave-based economy of the South and the industrialized economy of the North.) If slavery had not been at issue at all, the Confederacy would never have attempted secession. So saying the Civil War was about preserving the Union and not slavery is being deliberately obtuse.

As for WMDs, it is rather clear that we knew (or definitely should have known) the weapons did not exist at the time of the war. That they had existed at some time in the past is rather irrelevant -- Saddam had our blessing for ownership of such weapons for many years.

That we were led to war under an entirely false pretext is disturbing.

Moreover, although I hope for the best in Iraq, there are many causes for concern about whether the war will ultimately turn out all rosy.

The US has been down the road of overturning governments we don't like before. And the chickens eventually come home to roost. We have often ended up creating worse problems than we had to begin with. (Our support for Saddam for so long is a great example.)

In the short term, the war has had consequences as well (beyond the loss of US and Iraqi lives). Most experts agree that terrorist recruiting has been enhanced by the war. We are likely less safe than we were before we invaded Iraq.

Perhaps it is best to wait and let the conflict end before judging the parties involved? This is a war of values which cannot be easily ended in the spectacular fashion of past wars: atomic bombs, peace agreements, or leader executions. Regarding end justifing means, gas warfare was used during World War 1 killing thousands who did not have a chance to retaliate or defend in a most horrid manner. Does this make World War 1 an unmoral war that should not have been fought using the means at hand?

Yes - those were the downsides. Now look at the upsides of the Saddam regime. Like security. Being able to walk the streets without being mugged or raped. Like the trash being picked up with regular intervals. Ideals are nice, but in practice most people care more for those things. On average the Iraqi citizens might have been better off under Saddams rules. There were just some individuals that were WAY worse off. For that reason my gut says to support the invasion. But my brain says my gut should not be in charge.


They havent yet been able to make an accurate count of how many civilians were snatched by sadaam's son's toadies for purposes of rape,torture and murder. Thats a nice sense of security. And being arrested without official charges, executed and dissapearing. Very comforting.
Sanitation is such a progressive concept-trash was picked up on a regular basis. The average Iraqi must have thought this was wonderful.
Most people spend their entire lives over ruling a "gut" feeling. You think things over and over and over and then decide you'll be better off to keep thinking about it. A "gut" feeling is better known as "instinct"-it would be better for people to heed their instincts from time to time.

Perhaps it is best to wait and let the conflict end before judging the parties involved? This is a war of values which cannot be easily ended in the spectacular fashion of past wars: atomic bombs, peace agreements, or leader executions. Regarding end justifing means, gas warfare was used during World War 1 killing thousands who did not have a chance to retaliate or defend in a most horrid manner. Does this make World War 1 an unmoral war that should not have been fought using the means at hand?


As far as the gassing was concerned- In WWI, it was used between enemy combatants. Thats not to diminish the horror of convulsing to death, but thats why its called war. It was used in WWII in an attempt to exterminate a race. And sadaam used it with the same intent, but just dispersed on the people in their day to day lives, rather than bother with rounding them up.
His intentions were the same and these werent soldiers shooting back-they were families-children and women, dropped dead in the street while hanging laundry and playing children's games.

Yes, common criminals didn't do that in Iraq. The government did not want competition.

As for the security argument, I quote Benjamin Franklin. "Those who would sacrifice personal freedom for temporary security deserve niether freedom nor security."


Well said! True and true.

According to George W. Bush (who I admit, lies a lot), 90% of financial and life cost was American. 2nd highest was Britain, everyone else's contribution was a joke.

Ah yes, our government stands by the USA in everything, and our contribution is viewed as a "joke". Nice to know that this is the public sentiment about us over there.

No, it's not at all the same thing. The scenario you described is bad all-aorund. As for Iraq, yes it's chaotic, but it's getting better and the people are free and have taken part in the first free election in that nation's history. Your analogy, to be quite honest, does not correlate at all to the situation.

How is the analogy flawed?

1: Police barge into your home in search of something, without a warrent
1: The U.S. invades Iraq in search of WMD without a permission from the U.N.

2: After searching your house, the Police find nothing
2: After searching Iraq, the U.S. finds nothing

3: The Police kill you, because you live in a way they don't like
3: The U.S. captures Sadam, because they don't like the way he rules.

How is the analogy flawed? I will acknowledge that at #3, my example is more extream, but not by much, as it is only a matter of time before that is exactly what happens.

so as long as we can think up alternate justification, reasons that would not have been good enough to get us into war in the first place, its OK with you that we were lied to and tricked into going to war in the first place?

it seems kinda anti-american to me.

How is the analogy flawed?

1: Police barge into your home in search of something, without a warrent
1: The U.S. invades Iraq in search of WMD without a permission from the U.N.

2: After searching your house, the Police find nothing
2: After searching Iraq, the U.S. finds nothing

3: The Police kill you, because you live in a way they don't like
3: The U.S. captures Sadam, because they don't like the way he rules.

How is the analogy flawed? I will acknowledge that at #3, my example is more extream, but not by much, as it is only a matter of time before that is exactly what happens.
It's more like
1: Police barge into the home of a man guilty of beating his children and stealing property from his neighbors in search of something.
2: Police don't find what they're looking for.
3. Police capture the man because he's a danger to his charges and his neighbors.

so as long as we can think up alternate justification, reasons that would not have been good enough to get us into war in the first place, its OK with you that we were lied to and tricked into going to war in the first place?

it seems kinda anti-american to me.
WMDs and ties to Al-Queda were just icing on the cake for me when it comes to the invasion. Saddam surrendered in 1991 after Gulf War I. The cease fire was signed under specific conditions. Saddam was supposed to end weapons programs, allow inspectors in to prove he did, not build missiles that could exceed a certain range, etc... Saddam Hussein broke each of conditions, and more, in the 12 years before the current invasion. This war has been a long time justified.
Removing Saddam gives the Iraqi population, and the Middle East in general, a chance of stability. I supported this war during the build-up, and I still support it today.

alright...first to the comparison with Lincoln and the american civil war...there was one vital difference. The first one was a civil war. An internal problem, as you would say today. The second gulf war was an aggressive action by an outside nation. So you can't seriously tell me that you want to compare these two...

Second: The "justification" for this war.

Sure, Saddam was a cruel dictator. Yes, he oppressed and murdered his citizens. Nobody can deny that. But that was not why Bush said he needed to send troops there. He said there are WMD, he needs to find and destroy them. Oh and Saddam's an evil guy, too.
Fact is: The only WMD Hussein ever had he got from the US. There were no laboratorys found, if there had found at least a single one, american media would have pushed it to be a bigger event then the death of the pope to make sure everybody knows about it.
You can't change the reasons why you wanted to go to war simply because they turned out to be obvious crap. If Bush had said in the first place that he finally wanted to free Iraq then people might have not been that tense about it. Not saying that it would have been any better then. Just because the US is the only superpower in this world at the moment does not give your presiden the right to decide what's wrong and what's right. Because morals and values are always an individual thing, what i think is right you might think of as complete bulls**t. The only institution that might be able to decide what's justified and what's not in an international sense (for example concerning a situation like we are talking about) is the UN and that simply because most nations of this world are organized in it meaning they can come to a world wide consensus. Of course the UN is not perfect. But it way better fitted to decide about values and justifications for cases like we got there then any single leader of a country.

btw...Saddams ties to Osama where as good as non-existent. They tried to get along but they simply couldn't stand each other. Apart from that their goals where so far apart that it simply couldn't work out.

Fact is: The only WMD Hussein ever had he got from the US. There were no laboratorys found, if there had found at least a single one, american media would have pushed it to be a bigger event then the death of the pope to make sure everybody knows about it.
You're wrong there, buddy. Labs were found, the weapons themselves weren't. During the first few weeks at least one of those mobile labs Colin Powell told the UN about was discovered.

btw...Saddams ties to Osama where as good as non-existent. They tried to get along but they simply couldn't stand each other. Apart from that their goals where so far apart that it simply couldn't work out.
I've never found this argument valid. You ever heard that saying, "The enemy of my enemy is my friend"? Do you really think FDR and Stalin liked eachother? Of course not, but they still unified against a common threat. The US was a common threat to Saddam and Osama. It's not an outlandish idea they'd put their disagreements aside to strike out against he US.

Big deal. Bottom line is, Saddam Hussain still wasn't the nicest guy and the world is a better place without him. Of course that war costs us, Americans, a lot, but there is absolutely no need for other nations to bitch, especially since we did all the dirty work, and took 90% of the costs ourselves.There were bigger threats. There are bigger threats. Kim Jong Il, for instance. The Administration's focus on Hussein, who was basically nothing compared to the nigh-nuclear North Korea, would indicate that the motives behind this war had nothing to do with security or, if they did, that was only a secondary motivation; it would have made more sense to deal with North Korea, not Iraq, if we had been concerned with weapons of mass destruction.

Of course, now North Korea has nuclear weapons and can easily use them on South Korea, Japan, and possibly the West Coast of the United States. Meanwhile, in Baghdad, American soldiers, Iraqi citizens and Iraqi guerillas die every day.

Yes.

What a wonderful plan.

There were bigger threats. There are bigger threats. Kim Jong Il, for instance. The Administration's focus on Hussein, who was basically nothing compared to the nigh-nuclear North Korea, would indicate that the motives behind this war had nothing to do with security or, if they did, that was only a secondary motivation; it would have made more sense to deal with North Korea, not Iraq, if we had been concerned with weapons of mass destruction.

Of course, now North Korea has nuclear weapons and can easily use them on South Korea, Japan, and possibly the West Coast of the United States. Meanwhile, in Baghdad, American soldiers, Iraqi citizens and Iraqi guerillas die every day.

Yes.

What a wonderful plan.
That just doesn't make sense. Are you saying Bush should have invaded North Korea rather than Iraq? You'd prefer we invade a nation that been building itself up as a fortress nation for the last few decades? Then when we've finally beaten back the North Korean forces (assuming the Chinese hadn't supported them) we deal with guerilla forces using the jungle as cover rather than wide open desert. Is that really what you would prefer?

Well, if you were using WMD's as an excuse, it would sure make a lot more sense to go to a place that is BROADCASTING that they have WMD's.

Now, personally, I think going into N. Korea's absurd (for most of the reasons you've mentioned), but I also think Iraq was a pretty absurd idea too.

Iraqies is still dieng from terrorist atacks and inreased crimesrates. Also the goverment in Iraq is not stable yet and have the control over the country yet. So I can see how you can say the Iraqwar was the worth the cost, then you don't know the final cost and the finale results.

You're wrong there, buddy. Labs were found, the weapons themselves weren't. During the first few weeks at least one of those mobile labs Colin Powell told the UN about was discovered.



Source?

And if you talk to any chemical engineer, he will tell you that the concept of producing complicated chemical agents in a "mobile lab" is hilarious.

Source?

And if you talk to any chemical engineer, he will tell you that the concept of producing complicated chemical agents in a "mobile lab" is hilarious.

The funny part was the recent story about that bioengineer named Taha. She was the head of the anthrax program. Iraq officially destroyed a certain amount of the anthrax, but about 1800 gallons that they had made was unaccounted for.

The UN and the US agreed on this amount (even as Bush pushed to invade Iraq).

It is unlikely that continued UN inspection would have discovered this, nor is it likely that US intelligence pre-war would have discovered this, and the true facts were not discovered until after Taha was taken by US forces.

She had ordered the 1800 gallons neutralized by chemicals, but then wanted a place to dump it. She hadn't asked Saddam for permission to destroy it in the first place, but she didn't want to get caught by UN inspectors holding the stuff. So she had it dumped near one of Saddam's palaces. Fearful that he would be really upset if he found out, she didn't even tell him.

So no one knew what had happened to the missing anthrax - not even Saddam. Certainly not the UN. And most certainly not US intelligence.

If you thought that 1800 gallons of anthrax was in Iraq, what would you do?

http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/world/11253380.htm

That just doesn't make sense. Are you saying Bush should have invaded North Korea rather than Iraq? You'd prefer we invade a nation that been building itself up as a fortress nation for the last few decades? Then when we've finally beaten back the North Korean forces (assuming the Chinese hadn't supported them) we deal with guerilla forces using the jungle as cover rather than wide open desert. Is that really what you would prefer?
Not to mention that Seoul, Tokyo, and possibly LA would be giant smoking craters

Come on.. how many Poland troops were really there?

~2000 as far as I know. But the big 4 in terms of support were probably US, UK, Australia and Poland.

someone argue already!

someone argue already!
*argues* :p

Ein Deutscher']*argues* :p
i hate it when provocative threads go to waste

Ein Deutscher']*argues* :p
oh, I always argue with Ein Deutscher, so

*argues and rants* :D

WMD were not the only reason we went to war. The humanitarian goals were there from the beginning. As was the goal of trying to make it look like the UN actually meant what it said. And they have found traces of poison gas that the American media didn't report. And we know for a fact that Saddam had the stuff because he used it on the Kurds. So don't give me that "He didn't have any WMD" stuff. Because he did.

He did, sure, after all the West sold it to him. but he used that stuff more than 10 years ago on the Kurds. Why would the US go looking for it now, of all times? Then there was prove, but nobody lifted a finger to either help the Kurds or effectively disarm Iraq.

And, honestly, if there really had been traces of poison gas now, what reason could the US media have had not to report it? They were frantically searching for ANYTHING to report....

He did, sure, after all the West sold it to him. but he used that stuff more than 10 years ago on the Kurds. Why would the US go looking for it now, of all times? Then there was prove, but nobody lifted a finger to either help the Kurds or effectively disarm Iraq.

And, honestly, if there really had been traces of poison gas now, what reason could the US media have had not to report it? They were frantically searching for ANYTHING to report....


IIRC, no one sold anthrax. The nerve gas was Soviet.

Why would we go now? To clean up the mess that we helped create.

IIRC, no one sold anthrax. The nerve gas was Soviet.

Why would we go now? To clean up the mess that we helped create.
The question is, do the US have a right to barge into sovereign nations and "clean up" anything? If so, then I suggest the US clean themselves up first and foremost or let other countries do it for them, if they absolutely can't manage it themselves.

Why would we go now? To clean up the mess that we helped create.
Couldn't the mess that was created have been cleaned up immediately after it was made, instead of, you know, increasing support for Saddam and then waiting 15+ years to clean up the mess?

Couldn't the mess that was created have been cleaned up immediately after it was made, instead of, you know, increasing support for Saddam and then waiting 15+ years to clean up the mess?

Yes. That would have either required the first Bush to violate the UN Mandate on freeing Kuwait, or it would have required Clinton to do what every Democrat would consider to be an abomination.

It should have been done long ago. Terrorists and other trouble comes from the messes we make. Only the French (in their former colonies) and the US (at last) act unilaterally and without UN approval to clean up their messes.

Everyone else sits back and says, "you suck because you made a mess and won't clean it up, " and at the same time will say, "you're a criminal because you're trying to clean up your mess".

Yes. That would have either required the first Bush to violate the UN Mandate on freeing Kuwait, or it would have required Clinton to do what every Democrat would consider to be an abomination.

It should have been done long ago. Terrorists and other trouble comes from the messes we make. Only the French (in their former colonies) and the US (at last) act unilaterally and without UN approval to clean up their messes.

Everyone else sits back and says, "you suck because you made a mess and won't clean it up, " and at the same time will say, "you're a criminal because you're trying to clean up your mess".
I was referring to immediately after Saddam gassed the Kurds, during the Iran-Iraq war.

What I find disturbing is that Us citizen are OK with their leader lying to them for justifying such things as going to war. If they did it so successfully, what's to say they didn't lie in any othwer number of subjects? Furthermore, can you trust their words on anything after they have proven to lie to get what they want?

This discussion is being railroaded on the Iraqi situation when the big debate should be about how do you trust an administration that has been proven to lie? Also, what was the real goal of this war?

What I find disturbing is that Us citizen are OK with their leader lying to them for justifying such things as going to war. If they did it so successfully, what's to say they didn't lie in any othwer number of subjects? Furthermore, can you trust their words on anything after they have proven to lie to get what they want?

This discussion is being railroaded on the Iraqi situation when the big debate should be about how do you trust an administration that has been proven to lie? Also, what was the real goal of this war?
The real goal can be read on the PNAC website. Geostrategical posture is important for the US to control the most important resources (i.e. oil) in the times to come, when oil will run out.

What I find disturbing is that Us citizen are OK with their leader lying to them for justifying such things as going to war. If they did it so successfully, what's to say they didn't lie in any othwer number of subjects? Furthermore, can you trust their words on anything after they have proven to lie to get what they want?

This discussion is being railroaded on the Iraqi situation when the big debate should be about how do you trust an administration that has been proven to lie? Also, what was the real goal of this war?

It is arguable that the US intelligence community was incompetent in regards to accurate information in Iraq, and that Bush acted on that information.

You might be able to say, therefore, that the CIA lied to Bush, and that Bush did not lie.

One might also wonder - if you were lying about the WMD, any smart person would have covered their ass by building one of those mobile labs, stuffing it with WMD, and parking it in Baghdad to be "discovered" by US forces.

The fact that no attempt like this was made tells volumes - it tells me that this wasn't a lie - it was bad intelligence.

Prior to the Iraq war, there was a climate in the US where dissent from the "common wisdom" was not appreciated. Due to this, any warnings coming from the CIA which were aimed at reducing the threat Saddam supposedly was to the US, were dismissed by the White House. This most definitely was not the fault of the CIA, but of Bush & Co. who wanted the CIA to back up their prejudices, to start this war, at any cost. If Bush wants the CIA to figure out how to attack Iraq without looking like an ass, then Bush will get his intelligence to back up the most ridiculous claims.

One might also wonder - if you were lying about the WMD, any smart person would have covered their ass by building one of those mobile labs, stuffing it with WMD, and parking it in Baghdad to be "discovered" by US forces.

The fact that no attempt like this was made tells volumes - it tells me that this wasn't a lie - it was bad intelligence.
It's true that they could have done so, but that's awfully transparent. Perhaps attempts were made on a smaller scale, such as the aforementioned mobile lab being discovered, and the occasional sarin shell.

Ein Deutscher']The real goal can be read on the PNAC website. Geostrategical posture is important for the US to control the most important resources (i.e. oil) in the times to come, when oil will run out.
Of course, there's also the fact that Shrubya had his campaign contributors to pay back...it's not just a coincidence that his biggest contributors are also the ones making the most from the "reconstruction."

Ein Deutscher']Prior to the Iraq war, there was a climate in the US where dissent from the "common wisdom" was not appreciated. Due to this, any warnings coming from the CIA which were aimed at reducing the threat Saddam supposedly was to the US, were dismissed by the White House. This most definitely was not the fault of the CIA, but of Bush & Co. who wanted the CIA to back up their prejudices, to start this war, at any cost. If Bush wants the CIA to figure out how to attack Iraq without looking like an ass, then Bush will get his intelligence to back up the most ridiculous claims.

Then explain why Clinton also believed Iraq had WMD, based on what George Tenet told him.

Was Bush running the country during the Clinton Administration?

Ein Deutscher']Prior to the Iraq war, there was a climate in the US where dissent from the "common wisdom" was not appreciated. Due to this, any warnings coming from the CIA which were aimed at reducing the threat Saddam supposedly was to the US, were dismissed by the White House. This most definitely was not the fault of the CIA, but of Bush & Co. who wanted the CIA to back up their prejudices, to start this war, at any cost. If Bush wants the CIA to figure out how to attack Iraq without looking like an ass, then Bush will get his intelligence to back up the most ridiculous claims.

Then explain why Clinton also believed Iraq had WMD, based on what George Tenet told him.

Was Bush running the country during the Clinton Administration?

WMDs and ties to Al-Queda were just icing on the cake for me when it comes to the invasion. Saddam surrendered in 1991 after Gulf War I. The cease fire was signed under specific conditions. Saddam was supposed to end weapons programs, allow inspectors in to prove he did, not build missiles that could exceed a certain range, etc... Saddam Hussein broke each of conditions, and more, in the 12 years before the current invasion. This war has been a long time justified.
Removing Saddam gives the Iraqi population, and the Middle East in general, a chance of stability. I supported this war during the build-up, and I still support it today.
see now to ME, those things were a good justification for keeping a close eye on iraq, keeping up the pressure on iraq, even making a contingency plan to invade iraq if they started misbehaving again.

we had our plate full with afghanistan. we have dropped the ball there entirely as our military has been focused where it did not need to be. we are over extended in the world. so now we have a defacto draft as we keep people whose enlistments are up and drag back in those who have long been OUT of the military, even to the "drafting" of people who are retirement age.

but, as i said in my original post, it is mostly the part where we had to be lied to in order to get enough support to invade. that in and of itself is enough for me to be against the whole thing. making up justifications afterwards just doesnt do it for me.

Yes. That would have either required the first Bush to violate the UN Mandate on freeing Kuwait, or it would have required Clinton to do what every Democrat would consider to be an abomination.

It should have been done long ago. Terrorists and other trouble comes from the messes we make. Only the French (in their former colonies) and the US (at last) act unilaterally and without UN approval to clean up their messes.

Everyone else sits back and says, "you suck because you made a mess and won't clean it up, " and at the same time will say, "you're a criminal because you're trying to clean up your mess".

As I said before on a previous thread, This argument give the Whole of europe the rights to go into every other country in europe and about 5 countries the rights to go into the US. It also adds weight to the case you should have gone into Korea again, instead of Iraq.

As I said before on a previous thread, This argument give the Whole of europe the rights to go into every other country in europe and about 5 countries the rights to go into the US. It also adds weight to the case you should have gone into Korea again, instead of Iraq.

No, Korea was Resolution 90. The UN.

Korea wasn't our mess. It's a UN mess, and technically, the war is still ongoing.

Way to go, UN!

Source?

And if you talk to any chemical engineer, he will tell you that the concept of producing complicated chemical agents in a "mobile lab" is hilarious.
Yep, hilarious.
Here's what I was talking about. The mobile labs found during the initial invasion. WMDs were not found, but the labs meant to create them were.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/05/08/iraq/main552879.shtml
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,86378,00.html
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/2003/05/iraq-030507-afps01.htm
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20030529-122922-6267r.htm

That just doesn't make sense. Are you saying Bush should have invaded North Korea rather than Iraq? You'd prefer we invade a nation that been building itself up as a fortress nation for the last few decades? Then when we've finally beaten back the North Korean forces (assuming the Chinese hadn't supported them) we deal with guerilla forces using the jungle as cover rather than wide open desert. Is that really what you would prefer?Ah. So now we invaded Iraq because it was easy?

Ah. So now we invaded Iraq because it was easy?
Compared to invading North Korea, yes. To be successful in war you don't do a frontal assault on the enemy's stronghold. You attack the weak points that have a big effect. Attacking where the enemy is strong is a waste of lives, money and equipment.
The invasion of Iraq was far easier than an invasion of North Korea would be. Would you deny that?
Because of that invasion, and the present occupation, terrorist organizations are attacking American troops (who are trained and equipped to handle such violence as civilians are not) overseas away from American soil. If we are successful in building a stable, pro-West government in Iraq we will have an important ally in an important part of the world.
Iraq was a far easier target than N.Korea is, and success will yield a far greater gain.
:Edited for a misplaced comma