Before we invaded Iraq

[BadDad]

Many of us here on PPP, both liberal and conservative, were opposed to it. That I can recall not one person was opposed to it because they thought Saddam was a great guy. Although there were many reasons including, but not limited to, not convinced that WMD's were present, not convinced that Saddam presented an "imminent danger of attack", if he did have weapons he would definately use them against our troops during the attack or give them to terrorists, not convinced that it would be a relatively inexpensive war and short occupation, not at all convinced that the secular Iraqi Baathist party would have contact with Islamic fundamentalist terrorists like Al Qaeda, we still hadn't finished the war in Afghanistan yet, it would become a recruiting tool for UBL and others, etc.

 

In addition, the rationale being offered up by the Bush administration to go to war with Iraq, was much more legitemately applicable to othe countries, i.e. Iran, N. Korea, Pakistan, Syria, etc. Most of the world was also in opposition to a war with Iraq, including the general populations of the countries that joined the "coalition" (especially Spain, G. Britain, Italy, Poland and Australia). The U.N. would not go along with Mr. Bush' last resolution, the U.N. weapons inspectors requested more time and even Saddams more traditional enemies sat on the sidelines, i.e. Iran, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Syria, (all of whom,except Iran, were part of the coalition during the first Gulf War with both troops and treasure).

 

None of this gave pause to this adminstrations rush to war. The intelligence that they had, and we couldn't see, was indisputable. The threat was real and Saddam was even reconstituting his nuclear weapons program with aluminum tubes and yellow cake from Niger. The people in Iraq were tired of being oppressed by Saddam and would greet us with open arms and flowers. The cost of the occupation would be bourne by the Iraqi oil wealth not U.S. tax payers money.

 

Once "major combat operations" ended, the clamour for WMD began. We were told that it would take time, both here on the PPP board and by the administration. Shortly thereafter David Kay came out with his report stating there were no WMD's, but that also was disputed by the administration. Now this latest report comes out stating that there was no link between Al Qaeda and Iraq, there have not been nor are there presently any WMD's in Iraq since at least 1993 and that Saddam had allowed the programs to wither over the years.

 

In the meantime, the U.S. has spent 120 billion dollars for something that was going to cost us only around 2 billion. Over 1,000 U.S. troops have died, upwards of 20,000 have been wounded, 13,000-20,000 Iraqi's have been killed, terrorists are pouring into Iraq and killing coalition forces, civilian contractors and Iraqi's at ever escalating rates, terrorist attacks have increased worldwide, and there is no end in sight.

 

The present administrations response today to anybody who mentions any of the above is, we must stay the course. Our path is difficult and will take much hard work, but we must stay on it. I don't see us getting out of Iraq for quite sometime and don't think we can reasonably do so. We created the mess we're in and we must see it through. But, to "stay the course" means more than staying in Iraq, it means continue with the misguided policies in the war on terror that got us into the war in Iraq in the first place and that's just rediculous.

 

p.s. I will respond to civil debate but flamers and personal insults will be ignored.

[MichFan]

So you think the alternative is better than where we are now? You're entitled to that opinion, but I think it is fatally naive.

 

Go to www.kerryoniraq.com. Watch the movie. I particularly like the interviews with Kerry in '97 and '98. Kerry makes a stronger and more compelling case for unilateral, preemptive war on Iraq than the administration ever did. He even acknowledged that he was far beyond his party and his colleagues (Republicans included) on the issue of Iraq.

 

If you wanted an anti-war candidate, you should have stuck with Dean. Presenting your argument against the Iraq war in an effort to sway people to vote for Kerry is simply a waste of time. It was good for a laugh, though.

[Captain America]

Many of us here on PPP, both liberal and conservative, were opposed to it. That I can recall not one person was opposed to it because they thought Saddam was a great guy. Although there were many reasons including, but not limited to, not convinced that WMD's were present, not convinced that Saddam presented an "imminent danger of attack", if he did have weapons he would definately use them against our troops during the attack or give them to terrorists, not convinced that it would be a relatively inexpensive war and short occupation, not at all convinced that the secular Iraqi Baathist party would have contact with Islamic fundamentalist terrorists like Al Qaeda, we still hadn't finished the war in Afghanistan yet, it would become a recruiting tool for UBL and others, etc.

 

In addition, the rationale being offered up by the Bush administration to go to war with Iraq, was much more legitemately applicable to othe countries, i.e. Iran, N. Korea, Pakistan, Syria, etc. Most of the world was also in opposition to a war with Iraq, including the general populations of the countries that joined the "coalition" (especially Spain, G. Britain, Italy, Poland and Australia). The U.N. would not go along with Mr. Bush' last resolution, the U.N. weapons inspectors requested more time and even Saddams more traditional enemies sat on the sidelines, i.e. Iran, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Syria, (all of whom,except Iran, were part of the coalition during the first Gulf War with both troops and treasure).

 

None of this gave pause to this adminstrations rush to war. The intelligence that they had, and we couldn't see, was indisputable. The threat was real and Saddam was even reconstituting his nuclear weapons program with aluminum tubes and yellow cake from Niger. The people in Iraq were tired of being oppressed by Saddam and would greet us with open arms and flowers. The cost of the occupation would be bourne by the Iraqi oil wealth not U.S. tax payers money.

 

Once "major combat operations" ended, the clamour for WMD began. We were told that it would take time, both here on the PPP board and by the administration. Shortly thereafter David Kay came out with his report stating there were no WMD's, but that also was disputed by the administration. Now this latest report comes out stating that there was no link between Al Qaeda and Iraq, there have not been nor are there presently any WMD's in Iraq since at least 1993 and that Saddam had allowed the programs to wither over the years.

 

In the meantime, the U.S. has spent 120 billion dollars for something that was going to cost us only around 2 billion. Over 1,000 U.S. troops have died, upwards of 20,000 have been wounded, 13,000-20,000 Iraqi's have been killed, terrorists are pouring into Iraq and killing coalition forces, civilian contractors and Iraqi's at ever escalating rates, terrorist attacks have increased worldwide, and there is no end in sight.

 

The present administrations response today to anybody who mentions any of the above is, we must stay the course. Our path is difficult and will take much hard work, but we must stay on it. I don't see us getting out of Iraq for quite sometime and don't think we can reasonably do so. We created the mess we're in and we must see it through. But, to "stay the course" means more than staying in Iraq, it means continue with the misguided policies in the war on terror that got us into the war in Iraq in the first place and that's just rediculous.

 

p.s. I will respond to civil debate but flamers and personal insults will be ignored.

60113[/snapback]

What is your solution ,you give none?

[BadDad]

So you think the alternative is better than where we are now?  You're entitled to that opinion, but I think it is fatally naive.

 

Go to www.kerryoniraq.com.  Watch the movie.  I particularly like the interviews with Kerry in '97 and '98.  Kerry makes a stronger and more compelling case for unilateral, preemptive war on Iraq than the administration ever did.  He even acknowledged that he was far beyond his party and his colleagues (Republicans included) on the issue of Iraq.

 

If you wanted an anti-war candidate, you should have stuck with Dean.  Presenting your argument against the Iraq war in an effort to sway people to vote for Kerry is simply a waste of time.  It was good for a laugh, though.

60185[/snapback]

 

 

-What do you mean "the alternative is better than we are now?"

 

-I didn't mention Kerry and I find it very telling that your response is mostly to attack Kerry, and call me naive, but I'm glad you got a laugh out of it.

 

-Last I heard Mr. Dean, who I never supported, was no longer running for President.

 

-Can I assume that what you're saying is that more of the same is what you support?

[Kelly the Dog]

So you think the alternative is better than where we are now?  You're entitled to that opinion, but I think it is fatally naive.

 

Go to www.kerryoniraq.com.  Watch the movie.  I particularly like the interviews with Kerry in '97 and '98.  Kerry makes a stronger and more compelling case for unilateral, preemptive war on Iraq than the administration ever did.  He even acknowledged that he was far beyond his party and his colleagues (Republicans included) on the issue of Iraq.

 

If you wanted an anti-war candidate, you should have stuck with Dean.  Presenting your argument against the Iraq war in an effort to sway people to vote for Kerry is simply a waste of time.  It was good for a laugh, though.

60185[/snapback]

It is extremely unfair and useless to compare what someone said about Saddam's WMD in 1997 as opposed to 2002. The Inspectors were in there right before the war and said there was no indications of WMD. They could have used more time. ALL the talk about Saddam's WMD programs and evidence were Saddam's WMD's from a dozen years ago or more. There was ZERO evidence of new WMD from Saddam, just a theory that he probably has them and is hiding them. No proof whatsoever. He also hadn't used any WMD for the full 12 years. If he wanted to he would have, that's a long time.

 

Granted, I myself thought he likely had some stockpiles somewhere left over from pre-1991. I thought he would use them if he was attacked by us, but he didn't, and he clearly didn't have them, and wasn't making new ones. All of the irrefutable evidence actually pointed against him making new WMD, all of the theories had him making or wanting to make WMD. Face it, Bush wanted to attack Iraq. He wanted to take out Saddam. It may turn out 10-20 years from now to have been a great move, although it doesnt look that way now. But there was zero proof of a threat. There was zero proof of Saddam manufacturing WMD. All this talk about WMD was about old WMD and now it comes out that he didnt have that either. And the only reason we legitimately had that Saddam had WMD (as no one had actually seen them) was because he DIDNT prove that he DIDNT have them. There was no proof he had them. The new stuff was all theory, like the phantom yellow cake and the alluminum tubes for rockets not nukes and the phantom mobile labs, etc.

[BadDad]

What is your solution ,you give none?

60193[/snapback]

 

My solution to more of the same, is what should have been done in the first place. Before we go off on Syria, Iran, N. Korea or anybody else we first verify that the intelligence we are receiving is accurate. Second, if it is accurate we use it to build a strong coalition of our allies that will back us with both troops and treasure for not only the initial war but whatever occupation period would follow it. Third, I would listen very carefully to our military commanders, their plans, their needs and their concerns. Fourth, I would exhaust all diplomatic paths available.

 

Last, I would stop trying to equate a regime change based upon WMD's with the war on terror, unless there is irefutable evidence that the terrorists that are attacking U.S. interests either here or abroad are being harbored by that regime, as in the case of Afghanistan. Although our military is the most powerful in the world, it is not limitless and until we finish with our commitments in Afghanistan and Iraq, we should be very careful of going after anybody else. Maybe that's one of the main reasons that Iran and N. Korea are now openly defying us in their developement of nuclear weapons.

[tennesseeboy]

Actually BadDad, I was vehemently opposed to the war before we went in, and in fact cited Augustine's principles for a just war as the basis for my opposition in some detail One poster specifically asked me (before we went in at all, mind you) whether I believed Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. My response, for which I was somewhat flamed) was "no". Turns out I was right. I also said that the key was not just to find wmd but also solid evidence of an intent to use them against us. I believed (as has been borne out) that the existing sanctions, including the no fly zone, were in fact working. We know that now. This war could have been avoided. If we would have worked with others, Saddam could have been overthrown by those who should overthrow him...the Iraqis.

 

Wasteful and unnecessary war. Many of our finest have given their lives and come home wounded to satisfy the incompetent people we have in the white house.

[MichFan]

Libs -- this Iraq thing has been debated ad nauseum in topic after topic. There are basically two perspectives on Iraq. The libs hold a very narrow view of the war in Iraq and see it as an isolated event. Conservatives have a very broad view of the war on terror and don't see how you can claim to have a war on terror while allowing Saddam to stay in power in Iraq. Not going to waste time rehashing the same old, same old in this thread. In fact it doesn't matter what Bush did in Iraq -- you weren't going to vote for him regardless.

 

I strongly agree with Kerry's Iraq policy from 1997-2002/3. It's the post-Dean Kerry that I have so much trouble with. You lose a lot of credibility when you try to excuse one Kerry with the other, and it gets even worse when you claim both are the same (that he has been consistent all along).

[HoyaBill]

Libs -- this Iraq thing has been debated ad nauseum in topic after topic.  There are basically two perspectives on Iraq.  The libs hold a very narrow view of the war in Iraq and see it as an isolated event.  Conservatives have a very broad view of the war on terror and don't see how you can claim to have a war on terror while allowing Saddam to stay in power in Iraq.  Not going to waste time rehashing the same old, same old in this thread.  In fact it doesn't matter what Bush did in Iraq -- you weren't going to vote for him regardless.

 

60405[/snapback]

 

I don't excuse Kerry, so I'll ignore the last part. It's possible, or so I've been told, to not support either.

 

 

I understand the rational for attacking Iraq as part of the GWOT. Granted, the nexus Cheney spoke of in Cleveland was more likely found in Pakistan, where Al-Queda thrives, and the government controls nuclear weapons, or Iran, where the government has long supported Hezbollah, and continues to search for WMD - but still, I understand that one of the first lesson analysts learn before hitting the desk at Langley is that 'perception is reality,' ie you'll find what you want to find in information because you're mind is predisposed to what you want to see, and so Wolfowitz, et. al, the infamous Jim at CIA, where going to find their evidence eventually, and attack eventually.

 

My problem? By simply using checkables in unclassified , open source intelligence, you could come to the likely - though not certain - conclusion that: one billion soldiers, or one infantry division, one trillion dollars, or one dollar and change spent, Bush, Kerry or Nader, countries in the Middle East will eventually return to....

 

wait for it....

 

a muslim theocracy with a leader from the tribal majority that will defend itself based on it's own perceptions of threat to Islam.

[MichFan]

countries in the Middle East will eventually return to....

 

wait for it....

 

a muslim theocracy with a leader from the tribal majority that will defend itself based on it's own perceptions of threat to Islam.

 

Kind of like what happened to Iraq's neighbor to the North?

[BadDad]

Libs -- this Iraq thing has been debated ad nauseum in topic after topic.  There are basically two perspectives on Iraq.  The libs hold a very narrow view of the war in Iraq and see it as an isolated event.  Conservatives have a very broad view of the war on terror and don't see how you can claim to have a war on terror while allowing Saddam to stay in power in Iraq.  Not going to waste time rehashing the same old, same old in this thread.  In fact it doesn't matter what Bush did in Iraq -- you weren't going to vote for him regardless.

 

I strongly agree with Kerry's Iraq policy from 1997-2002/3.  It's the post-Dean Kerry that I have so much trouble with.  You lose a lot of credibility when you try to excuse one Kerry with the other, and it gets even worse when you claim both are the same (that he has been consistent all along).

60405[/snapback]

 

 

Probably the last post I will ever respond to you in since it's a total waste of time.

 

However, for those who are still willing to openly debate something that has cost over 1,000 lives, over 13,000 Iraqi lives, close to 20,000 injured U.S. soldiers, and over 120 billion U.S.tax payer dollars, should we continue down this road? Should we blindly follow our Govt. and not question their decisions? More of the same for the gentleman from Michigan. He agrees with Kerry, Clinton, the King of Siam and the rest of us that, (from what we knew in 1997-1998 when there were no UN inspectors in Iraq for the previous 5 years) Saddam was continuing his WMD programs.

 

Saddam was a percieved to be a patsy for this administration. They knew we would role into Baghdad without a problem. They had intel from Chalabi, etc. that we would be welcomed with open arms. They heard from Chalabi that Al Qaeda was in Baghdad. What better "enemy" could we attack? What better, and easier, revenge could we take? It wouldn't cost us much, only 2 billion according to Wolfowitz et al. It wouldn't be difficult to conquer the Iraqi army, according to Tommy Franks (which was true). We had cover with WMD, according to Tenent. Why go after N. Korea which would have been much more dangerous, 38,000 troops in range of artillery and, God forbid, nukes. Iran, not as dangerous but a lot more difficult to role over and, percieved to be, much more difficult to manage after the war.

 

My contention is that this was a war of political convenience and your pat talking points responses do nothing to refute it.

[BadDad]

I don't excuse Kerry, so I'll ignore the last part. It's possible, or so I've been told, to not support either.

I understand the rational for attacking Iraq as part of the GWOT.  Granted, the nexus Cheney spoke of in Cleveland was more likely found in Pakistan, where Al-Queda thrives, and the government controls nuclear weapons, or Iran, where the government has long supported Hezbollah, and continues to search for WMD - but still, I understand that one of the first lesson analysts learn before hitting the desk at Langley is that 'perception is reality,' ie you'll find what you want to find in information because you're mind is predisposed to what you want to see, and so Wolfowitz, et. al, the infamous Jim at CIA, where going to find their evidence eventually, and attack eventually.

 

My problem?  By simply using checkables in unclassified , open source intelligence, you could come to the likely - though not certain - conclusion that: one billion soldiers, or one infantry division, one trillion dollars, or one dollar and change spent, Bush, Kerry or Nader, countries in the Middle East will eventually return to....

 

wait for it....

 

a muslim theocracy with a leader from the tribal majority that will defend itself based on it's own perceptions of threat to Islam.

60431[/snapback]

 

 

No problem, my question is why did we decide to stir up that particular hornets nest? Why did we, if as you contend overthrow a secular Govt. when we had two Fundamentalist States bordering it, Saudi Arabia and Iran?

[HoyaBill]

Kind of like what happened to Iraq's neighbor to the North?

60434[/snapback]

 

 

A fine point, but only if Turkey is viewed from a very narrow lense, removed from context.

 

A couple of points, which you can freely disagree with:

 

1) Turkey's secularism is a lot different from what we view in the West. In other words, it's not the American Revolution, spawned by the French secularism/enlightenment. Rather, Attaturk completely squashed any show of religion in Turkey in the 1920's.

 

An effective move then, but would it have the same effect now in Baghdad?

 

 

2) The military in particular bought into Attaturk's reforms, enforcing the no-religion rule in the the beginning, as well as while he slowly lifted the ban (the govt dictated when and where someone could worship).

 

Would the Iraqi military support such a ban? Could the US military enforce one?

 

3) Turkey's pro-Western stance came from the Soviet threat, not neccesarily a desire to embrace the West.

 

Does Iraq's government face such a similar threat that it could convince its people to look West? Or, is the threat they feel from the West?

 

4) In many ways, democracy came to Turkey at the muzzle of a gun, but it was not the feared Western bayonette - rather, 'one of their own' ruled them.

 

Right now, Allawi and Karzai are outsiders in their countries - are they viewed as reformers or Western pawns?

 

5) Recently the AKP, an Islamic based party came to power. Washington has rightfully so embraced it because after 80+ years Turkey's democracy has taken hold...but to ignore the context in which those 80 years past would be a lot like looking at the US's democracy and not including the contextual factors (going back to 1215) that formed it.

 

 

 

Overall, a fine point. Democracy isn't anathema to Arabs. But ask yourself what the context - the ideational forces - that effect current forced democratic movements.

(Thanks to Prof. Bernard Lewis for the historical points about...if you want citations, you may need to wait a couple of days or guy to the library yourselves).

[HoyaBill]

No problem, my question is why did we decide to stir up that particular hornets nest? Why did we, if as you contend overthrow a secular Govt. when we had two Fundamentalist States bordering it, Saudi Arabia and Iran?

60457[/snapback]

 

 

BadDad:

 

I think the government finally bought into the neo-conservatives in the Whitehouse after 9/11 for several reasons.

 

1) They wanted a more forceful response to 9/11. Overthrowing the Taliban was small potatoes, the Whitehouse wanted to send a message: "if you harbor terrorists, we're coming after you." (I think people here have touched on it before: the 'shock and awe' of war also extends to the populace in our own country. That's why instead of routing the villages in Afghanistan for al-queda they held cities like Kabul. Also, I think because they would have been accused of being too bloodthirsty...so a lot of al-queda surviced, but I'm off topic...). On the surface Iraq seemed much easier than Iran to pacify.

 

2) People like Wolfowitz saw the intelligence they 'wanted' to see. They did not intentionally mislead, but they were careless.

 

3) Global Pax Americana. Democracy is the key to peace. No two countries with a McDonald's have ever attacked somebody. Bring democracy, and wealth, and McDonald's to the Middle East and they'll be peace-loving. Tom Friedman's old schtick.

 

Anything else; oil, bloodthirst, Machivellian designs, might be true but didn't - in my opinion - come into deciding to go to war.

[TPS]

As I recall, I was posting a lot about Scott Ritter's assertions that Saddam was not a threat and the inspections were working. Because Ritter opposed this administration, and was one of the few people calling them on their faulty intelligence, the right-wing attack machine went after him. Find some personal failing and put it in public to discredit him. What a crock! It's like saying none of you have credibility because you all masturbate....

 

Turns out he was dead on.

[MichFan]

But ask yourself what the context - the ideational forces - that effect current forced democratic movements.

I think we are entering a stage in history where it will be unacceptable to the broader world community for dictatorships, theocracies, and eventually but much later on, kingdoms, to reign in the Middle East. Success in Iraq and Afghanistan will help develop internal pressures, a "freedom coalition" will provide external pressures.

[MichFan]

However, for those who are still willing to openly debate something that has cost over 1,000 lives, over 13,000 Iraqi lives, close to 20,000 injured U.S. soldiers, and over 120 billion U.S.tax payer dollars, should we continue down this road? Should we blindly follow our Govt. and not question their decisions? More of the same for the gentleman from Michigan. He agrees with Kerry, Clinton, the King of Siam and the rest of us that, (from what we knew in 1997-1998 when there were no UN inspectors in Iraq for the previous 5 years) Saddam was continuing his WMD programs.

 

BadDad, your circular argument just means you are dug in as deeply as I am in our positions. The fact is, a decision had to be made 2 years ago based on what was known 2 years ago. Your revisionist posts may make you feel like you are being influential, but not a single person on this board is going to change their minds based on anything you or I write.

[HoyaBill]

I think we are entering a stage in history where it will be unacceptable to the broader world community for dictatorships, theocracies, and eventually but much later on, kingdoms, to reign in the Middle East.  Success in Iraq and Afghanistan will help develop internal pressures, a "freedom coalition" will provide external pressures.

60506[/snapback]

 

Not attacking you personally, but why do you feel this way? I hope you're right!

 

If you read some of bin Laden's transcripts, you'll see he's calling on Muslim's to defend Islam. He's saying: "Look, the West is killing you because you're Muslim - defend yourself!" this message was getting through to some before, after Iraq, it's getting through more...if more states are attacked, more countries join in? I'm not sure what will happen...I fear we're playing into the killer's hands. But what should we do? That's rhetorical - I don't know.

[BadDad]

BadDad:

 

I think the government finally bought into the neo-conservatives in the Whitehouse after 9/11 for several reasons.

 

1) They wanted a more forceful response to 9/11.  Overthrowing the Taliban was small potatoes, the Whitehouse wanted to send a message: "if you harbor terrorists, we're coming after you."  (I think people here have touched on it before: the 'shock and awe' of war also extends to the populace in our own country.  That's why instead of routing the villages in Afghanistan for al-queda they held cities like Kabul.  Also, I think because they would have been accused of being too bloodthirsty...so a lot of al-queda surviced, but I'm off topic...).  On the surface Iraq seemed much easier than Iran to pacify.

 

2) People like Wolfowitz saw the intelligence they 'wanted' to see.  They did not intentionally mislead, but they were careless.

 

3) Global Pax Americana.  Democracy is the key to peace.  No two countries with a McDonald's have ever attacked somebody.  Bring democracy, and wealth, and McDonald's to the Middle East and they'll be peace-loving.  Tom Friedman's old schtick.

 

Anything else; oil, bloodthirst, Machivellian designs, might be true but didn't - in my opinion - come into deciding to go to war.

60498[/snapback]

 

 

Hoya, no problem with wanting a forceful response after 9-11, I wanted blood like everybody else in this country. I applauded Mr. Bush, (right here) for his speech to the firemen and police in NYC with the bullhorn. The problem I see with this admin is more fundamental than saying Wolfowitz saw what he wanted to see. Who put Wolfowitz in that positiion? Who put Fieth in a position to determine U.S. foreign policy from the Pentagon? Who allowed it all to happen?

 

I blame the smart guys the most, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Powel. They were the reason I had some confidence in this admin. after the election. The political people like Rove and Hughes I discounted, my mistake.

[Captain America]

My solution to more of the same, is what should have been done in the first place. Before we go off on Syria, Iran, N. Korea or anybody else we first verify that the intelligence we are receiving is accurate. Second, if it is accurate we use it to build a strong coalition of our allies that will back us with both troops and treasure for not only the initial war but whatever occupation period would follow it. Third, I would listen very carefully to our military commanders, their plans, their needs and their concerns. Fourth, I would exhaust all diplomatic paths available.

 

Last, I would stop trying to equate a regime change based upon WMD's with the war on terror, unless there is irefutable evidence that the terrorists that are attacking U.S. interests either here or abroad are being harbored by that regime, as in the case of Afghanistan. Although our military is the most powerful in the world, it is not limitless and until we finish with our commitments in Afghanistan and Iraq, we should be very careful of going after anybody else. Maybe that's one of the main reasons that Iran and N. Korea are now openly defying us in their developement of nuclear weapons.

60223[/snapback]

Second, if it is accurate we use it to build a strong coalition of our allies that will back us with both troops and treasure

If you think that Germany ,France and Russia didnt support us because they felt it was wrong . think again they assured Saddam we would not attack and all three of them are up to thier ears in the UN oil for food scandal that is now starting to come out.

For ten years we and the UN tried to get Saddam to say he didnt have WMD's .Dont you think thats long enough? After 9/11 we cannot afford the luxary of extensive dilomacy that most likey goes no where.

As far as N Korea and Iran goes when Bush wins in Novemember they will capitulate , however if Kerry got in it would continute to drag on, giving them yet more time to build nukes.

The bigger scandle is the oil for food scandal.

If you say as Kerry says wrong war worng time , then would you re instate Saddam to his former position and if not why?

[MichFan]

Not attacking you personally, but why do you feel this way? I hope you're right!

People in the Middle East right now are ruled by keeping them poor, ignorant, and/or fearful. Sounds corny, but I firmly believe that when people sense hope and see a pathway to freedom, they will pursue it. Just the idea that Afghan women are returning to school and voting is a fine example of this.

 

Unfortunately, to get the momentum going in the Middle East we have had to address the two most repressive regimes militarily. Done properly, diplomatic pressure and limited tactical strikes should be effective in the future.

[Captain America]

Actually BadDad, I was vehemently opposed to the war before we went in, and in fact cited Augustine's principles for a just war as the basis for my opposition in some detail  One poster specifically asked me (before we went in at all, mind you) whether I believed Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. My response, for which I was somewhat flamed) was "no".  Turns out I was right.  I also said that the key was not just to find wmd but also solid evidence of an intent to use them against us.  I believed (as has been borne out) that the existing sanctions, including the no fly zone, were in fact working.  We know that now.  This war could have been avoided.  If we would have worked with others, Saddam could have been overthrown by those who should overthrow him...the Iraqis.

 

Wasteful and unnecessary war.  Many of our finest have given their lives and come home wounded to satisfy the incompetent people we have in the white house.

60339[/snapback]

In other words we went in and we were wrong (didaster) , or we could have waited and been wrong (bigger disaster).Also if you believe we were totally wrong then I assume you are in favor of reinstating Saddam to his former position .You cant have it both ways.

[GG]

BadDad:

 

I think the government finally bought into the neo-conservatives in the Whitehouse after 9/11 for several reasons.

 

(snip)

 

3) Global Pax Americana.  Democracy is the key to peace.  No two countries with a McDonald's have ever attacked somebody.  Bring democracy, and wealth, and McDonald's to the Middle East and they'll be peace-loving.  Tom Friedman's old schtick.

 

Anything else; oil, bloodthirst, Machivellian designs, might be true but didn't - in my opinion - come into deciding to go to war.

60498[/snapback]

 

So far, point #3 has not been disproven, and is a logical premise. Since you bring Bernard Lewis into the picture, he's not ambiguous about his views on the war.

[BadDad]

If you think that Germany ,France and Russia didnt support us because they felt it was wrong . think again they assured Saddam we would not attack and  all three of them are up to thier ears in the UN oil for food scandal that is now starting to come out.

For ten years we and the UN tried to get Saddam to say he didnt have WMD's .Dont you think thats long enough? After 9/11 we cannot afford the luxary of extensive  dilomacy that most likey goes no where.

As far as N Korea and Iran goes when Bush wins in Novemember they will capitulate , however if Kerry got in it would continute to drag on, giving them yet more time to build nukes.

The bigger scandle is the oil for food scandal.

If you say as Kerry says wrong war  worng time , then would you re instate Saddam to his former position and if not why?

60572[/snapback]

 

Yes I think that the security council would have supported the U.S. if the case was presented in the right way at the right time, however, simply telling the world that we are the only power and there is nothing they can do about it won't win many allies. How many times has the U.S. ignored it's dues, or resolutions we haven't agreed with? Many countries have ignored UN resolutions or failed to comply with them for reasons of national security.

 

The point is that ignoring U.N. resolutions is not perceived as a serious challenge to the world community. Also at the time the U.N. did have weapons inspectors on the ground in Iraq.

 

As for N. Korea, it is, (and was), obvious that they have been persuing nuclear weapons for a number of years and so has Iran. If Mr. Kerry wins you contend that they will both threaten us with nuclear attack. I contend that if Mr. Bush wins, they will both continue their nuclear programs because we can't do anything about it short of using our own WMD's.

 

In reality I think Mr. Kerry, or Mr. Edwards, or Mr. Powel or Mr. McCain would seek a much more diplomatic position. Of course I could be wrong and they could attack with the NYS reserves and the UB ROTC candidates.

 

Last, the argument that if you opposed the war and still do you must want to reinstate Saddam is a crock of caca. Nobody in their right mind would reinstate Saddam after the fact, however for those without memory, he didn't have to be deposed at the time he was, in the way he was, and unilaterally by the U.S. That is not the same as reinstating him but those of you who want to paint any critics of the administrations policies as heresy will never see that. As AD would say, turn on e microwave and pour yourself some koolaid.

[Alaska Darin]

Yes I think that the security council would have supported the U.S. if the case was presented in the right way at the right time, however, simply telling the world that we are the only power and there is nothing they can do about it won't win many allies.  How many times has the U.S. ignored it's dues, or resolutions we haven't agreed with? Many countries have ignored UN resolutions or failed to comply with them for reasons of national security.

61087[/snapback]

You are positively NUTS if you believe Russia, France, and Germany would have changed their votes for ANY reason. Their objections had NOTHING to do with the right and wrong and EVERYTHING to do with MONEY.

 

Their stances are ALL about graft and corruption. Those 3 countries were making billions in Iraq and the political climates in their countries demand that they stand up for their fiscal interest.

 

Put down your ideology and use some common sense.

[checkmate]

Ok, entrenched positions on both sides of the debate:

 

under what circumstances, absent an imminent present danger to our country, does our country have the legal right (explain your interpretation of legal right) to change the government of another country?

 

We all can admit that Iraq was not imminent to attack us conventionally, but may have been able to support terrorists someday (I don't buy this, but the Bush Administration hangs its hat on it and my skepticism aside, I have to believe the Administration at least believes that position).

[BadDad]

You are positively NUTS if you believe Russia, France, and Germany would have changed their votes for ANY reason.  Their objections had NOTHING to do with the right and wrong and EVERYTHING to do with MONEY. 

 

Their stances are ALL about graft and corruption.  Those 3 countries were making billions in Iraq and the political climates in their countries demand that they stand up for their fiscal interest. 

 

Put down your ideology and use some common sense.

61093[/snapback]

 

Both common sense and history dictate that you're wrong Darin. Your "ideology" and stubborn conservatism, won't allow you to see any farther than your entrenched position. Around the world your second paragraph is being paraphrased substituting the Bush administration for "Those 3 countries".

 

Take a minute and take the blinders off, open your mind I know you're not as bitter as you appear.

[MichFan]

Both common sense and history dictate that you're wrong Darin.

LOL. You cite the history of France, Germany, and Russia to try and prove AD wrong? You may want to revisit the history books, paying particular attention to the 20th Century. The "common sense" in this matter clearly indicates that these countries were profitting from the Oil For Food scandal and had an inside track on lucrative contracts once they forced the rollback of sanctions in the U.N.

[Ray]

Although the report released this week shows no stockpiles of WMD there were some other interesting findings for those more interested in more than just a headline.

1) Saddam was actually getting stronger by the sanctions and food for oil program putting away over 350 million in the same coffers that financed his WMD in the past.

2) He was going to wait it out another year or two and when the sanctions stopped was going to restart his WMD programs meaning he would be starting them about now.

3) Once restarted he'd have chemical weapons within a year

4) He wasn't going to go away

5) He even fooled his own intelligence agancy who thought Iraq had WMD

6) The world is better off without him in power

7) France, Germany and Russia were never going to go along with removing him because they were Saddam's allies not ours.

[KD in CA]

Second, if it is accurate we use it to build a strong coalition of our allies that will back us with both troops and treasure for not only the initial war but whatever occupation period would follow it.

 

And what happens if the frogs don't give us permission? Fold up the tent and go home? Thanks John Kerry. We tried that and our "allies" said, no thanks, we'd rather keep making billions by undermining the Iraqi sanctions.

[Alaska Darin]

Both common sense and history dictate that you're wrong Darin. Your "ideology" and stubborn conservatism, won't allow you to see any farther than your entrenched position. Around the world your second paragraph is being paraphrased substituting the Bush administration for "Those 3 countries".

 

Take a minute and take the blinders off, open your mind I know you're not as bitter as you appear.

61298[/snapback]

Stubborn conservatism? I was against the war in Iraq. I didn't vote for this President and I'm not voting for him this time around, either. What exactly is my "entrenched position?" That those 3 countries lost out on BILLIONS of graft and corruption revenue? I'm not coming off that because it's true. That France and Germany are weak on dealing with difficult issues? Also true. They completely ignored the Bosnia situation until we did something about it and have been appeasing their own terrorists for years to the detriment of the world around them.

 

I really could care less what people "around the world" say about America, as I have actually LIVED "around the world." Unlike them, I'm able to call all governments (including the U.N.) on what they do rather than what they say. Virtually every time we do something, they protest in the streets. Then when something goes wrong and their own government and the U.N. fail them, they can't hold their hands out fast enough to good ol' Uncle Sam, whose troops and taxpayer money are again asked to save the day.

[Captain America]

if we didnt go to Iraq ,right or wrong , we would not have known this

" Disc Found in Iraq Has U.S. Schools Info" Of course Kerry says it was the wrong war at the wrong time hmm I seem to remember John Dean saying that.He voted fo it and then he voted against it (after he found out it didnt contain a tax increase). You thought Bush was a moron Kerry wins this one big time in the moron category.

[GG]

Both common sense and history dictate that you're wrong Darin. Your "ideology" and stubborn conservatism, won't allow you to see any farther than your entrenched position. Around the world your second paragraph is being paraphrased substituting the Bush administration for "Those 3 countries".

 

Take a minute and take the blinders off, open your mind I know you're not as bitter as you appear.

61298[/snapback]

 

And may I ask you to put your ideology aside, and consider the following scenario.

 

We now know that Saddam had no WMDs, but a very good likelihood of resurrecting them once sanctions were lifted. He was also starting a hard campaign with certain members of the Security Counsel to ease the sanctions.

 

Do you not find it an amzing coincidence that the Sec Counsel countries that were the most vocal against the war are the ones implicated in the growing Oil for Food scandal? Would you consider the possibility that stubborn Saddam overplayed his hand because he didn't think that US would attack without UN authorization, and that he allegedly had assurances from France that it would veto any such move (which it threatened to do)

 

Getting the imprimatur from the UN was hollow because of the double dealing by the people on Sec Counsel. Now, the obstinates are coming around, because they know a destabilized Mid East hurts them a hell of a lot more than it hurts us. They also get to eat their cake. The ugly American cowboy removed a major thorn in their side, they paid zero for it, yet they still get to accuse the US of harming world peace. Nice job, indeed.

 

Do you not find it interesting that this week France & Germany specifically distanced themselves from Kerry's words, and are starting quiet talks with Bushies?

[BadDad]

Stubborn conservatism?  I was against the war in Iraq.  I didn't vote for this President and I'm not voting for him this time around, either.  What exactly is my "entrenched position?"  That those 3 countries lost out on BILLIONS of graft and corruption revenue?  I'm not coming off that because it's true.  That France and Germany are weak on dealing with difficult issues?  Also true.  They completely ignored the Bosnia situation until we did something about it and have been appeasing their own terrorists for years to the detriment of the world around them. 

 

I really could care less what people "around the world" say about America, as I have actually LIVED "around the world."  Unlike them, I'm able to call all governments (including the U.N.) on what they do rather than what they say.  Virtually every time we do something, they protest in the streets.  Then when something goes wrong and their own government and the U.N. fail them, they can't hold their hands out fast enough to good ol' Uncle Sam and the troops and taxpayer money that are asked to save the day.

61488[/snapback]

 

 

I know that you were against the war before we invaded and we agreed on many of our reasons for being against it. I think we both agree that now that we're there we have to finish the war. My contention is that, because the reasons that we were given as justification for invading Iraq have been totally proven to be eroneous, and the fact that from Condi to Bush to Cheney, none will accept the fact that we made a mistake and in fact have made it clear that they will not change this policy, then we need a change of the administration.

 

As for our traditional allies in Europe and their loss of graft and billions in coruption, I'm sure that hurt them and don't doubt that it factored into their opposition to the war. I also feel that the loss of potential, (legitimate) oil contracts that they had with Iraq and would stand to loose (which they did as a result of the invasion), factored into the opposition. However, what I was saying was simply that had we taken the time to allow the inspectors to finish their work, as I recall they requested a few more months, maybe six, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Our allies and that includes Arab neighbors of Saddam all joined us in 1991. Our allies all joined us in Afghanistan and are still there today. That's what I mean by historically.

 

I know you've lived around the world and I think you know that I have as well, and I still travel quite a bit and do business with people outside of the U.S. When I said your entrenched position, I was trying to point out the all or nothing attitude that you exhibit when you say that you couldn't care less what the world thinks because you've lived around the world. Since you've lived around the world and have been exposed to other peoples and cultures I know your mind is much more open than those kind of statements make it seem.

[Alaska Darin]

I know that you were against the war before we invaded and we agreed on many of our reasons for being against it. I think we both agree that now that we're there we have to finish the war. My contention is that, because the reasons that we were given as justification for invading Iraq have been totally proven to be eroneous, and the fact that from Condi to Bush to Cheney, none will accept the fact that we made a mistake and in fact have made it clear that they will not change this policy, then we need a change of the administration.

 

As for our traditional allies in Europe and their loss of graft and billions in coruption, I'm sure that hurt them and don't doubt that it factored into their opposition to the war. I also feel that the loss of potential, (legitimate) oil contracts that they had with Iraq and would stand to loose (which they did as a result of the invasion), factored into the opposition. However, what I was saying was simply that had we taken the time to allow the inspectors to finish their work, as I recall they requested a few more months, maybe six, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Our allies and that includes Arab neighbors of Saddam all joined us in 1991. Our allies all joined us in Afghanistan and are still there today. That's what I mean by historically.

 

I know you've lived around the world and I think you know that I have as well, and I still travel quite a bit and do business with people outside of the U.S. When I said your entrenched position, I was trying to point out the all or nothing attitude that you exhibit when you say that you couldn't care less what the world thinks because you've lived around the world. Since you've lived around the world and have been exposed to other peoples and cultures I know your mind is much more open than those kind of statements make it seem.

61523[/snapback]

I despise the term "traditional allies" of France and Germany because it's really not true. The French have snubbed us so many times that we actually dropped a bomb on their Embassy in Tripoli (whoops). That was also over terrorism.

 

Suffice it to say I agree with GG's last post in this thread pretty much whole heartedly. The French and the Germans were making lots of money in Iraq, both legitimately and not so. They KNEW that cow was going to die if Saddam was removed. Neither country cared that the sanctions were killing millions of innocent people or that Saddam was building palaces with the UN oil money. Because they were getting theirs and because they were more concerned with angering their own terrorists than doing the right thing.

 

The UN inspectors had 12 years to finish their work. That toothless organization reminds me of today's parents. "Johnny, if you don't do as I say I'm going to put you in time out." Repeat that another 20 times and then walk away in frustration.

[GG]

As for our traditional allies in Europe and their loss of graft and billions in coruption, I'm sure that hurt them and don't doubt that it factored into their opposition to the war. I also feel that the loss of potential, (legitimate) oil contracts that they had with Iraq and would stand to loose (which they did as a result of the invasion), factored into the opposition. However, what I was saying was simply that had we taken the time to allow the inspectors to finish their work, as I recall they requested a few more months, maybe six, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Our allies and that includes Arab neighbors of Saddam all joined us in 1991. Our allies all joined us in Afghanistan and are still there today. That's what I mean by historically.

 

61523[/snapback]

 

I think it's a pipe dream.

 

The one part no one has been able to explain is why Saddam was keeping up all the appearances of having WMD/programs and interfering in the UN's WMD process. Perhaps Saddam didn't want his manhood challenged that the US/UN completely castrated him. Not a good image to project among fellow Mid East despots & the famed Arab Street.

 

I think his goal was to forestall any action on WMDs until he could get the sanctions lifted, turn attention off himself and start fresh.

 

That's my belief was Bush/Cheney/Condie/Rummy/Wolfie fear.

[BadDad]

And may I ask you to put your ideology aside, and consider the following scenario.

 

We now know that Saddam had no WMDs, but a very good likelihood of resurrecting them once sanctions were lifted.  He was also starting a hard campaign with certain members of the Security Counsel to ease the sanctions. 

 

Do you not find it an amzing coincidence that the Sec Counsel countries that were the most vocal against the war are the ones implicated in the growing Oil for Food scandal?  Would you consider the possibility that stubborn Saddam overplayed his hand because he didn't think that US would attack without UN authorization, and that he allegedly had assurances from France that it would veto any such move (which it threatened to do)

 

Getting the imprimatur from the UN was hollow because of the double dealing by the people on Sec Counsel.  Now, the obstinates are coming around, because they know a destabilized Mid East hurts them a hell of a lot more than it hurts us.  They also get to eat their cake.  The ugly American cowboy removed a major thorn in their side, they paid zero for it, yet they still get to accuse the US of harming world peace.  Nice job, indeed.

 

Do you not find it interesting that this week France & Germany specifically distanced themselves from Kerry's words, and are starting quiet talks with Bushies?

61510[/snapback]

 

 

We now know that Saddam had no WMD's and that, according to the report, he was not getting stronger but on the contrary he was getting weaker. If he survived, there is a possibility that he would try to resurect his WMD programs, this I don't doubt or deny. I also think that to try and justify the collosal mistake that this administration made by invading Iraq at the time we did, in the way we did, and with the plan (or lack of a plan) for the peace that we did, by saying now that well he probably would have resurected his destroyed WMD programs is sounding like more of the same grasping at straws that this administration and its supporters have engaged in for all too long now.

 

Again I'm simply saying that I think that the policy that this administration continues to hold to has proven to get us into a mess in Iraq, has not made the world safer from terrorism, has alienated the world against us, has cost us the lives of our troops and over 120 billion in tax payer money, etc. When questioned about it the President and the VP both say that should they be elected we will see more of the same.

 

As for your statement about the corruption in the UN "oil for food program", I don't dispute it and you're probably right any way we'll know for sure shortly. However I still contend that there are, (were), ways to get our allies to stand with us. My God George Bush, (the one I voted for), convinced Arab countries to not only not interfere with the first Gulf War but to actually send troops to join us in the coalition against Saddam. This administration wasn't very interested in having our traditional allies involved anyway or they would have taken the time to get them on board.

[Kelly the Dog]

Couldnt France, Germany and Russia have made as much money, or even more billions in contracts than they were stealing with Saddam from the UN if Bush had allowed them to get future contracts in the rebuilding process? Just wondering.

[BadDad]

I think it's a pipe dream. 

 

The one part no one has been able to explain is why Saddam was keeping up all the appearances of having WMD/programs and interfering in the UN's WMD process.  Perhaps Saddam didn't want his manhood challenged that the US/UN completely castrated him.  Not a good image to project among fellow Mid East despots & the famed Arab Street.

 

I think his goal was to forestall any action on WMDs until he could get the sanctions lifted, turn attention off himself and start fresh.

 

That's my belief was Bush/Cheney/Condie/Rummy/Wolfie fear.

61549[/snapback]

 

 

Your theory of why Saddam kept interfering with the UN weapons inspectors is a valid one and may quite possibly be correct, (that he was waiting until the sanctions were lifted so he could reconstitute his WMD programs). I think it's just as likely that, first, by not allowing anybody to definitively show that he had no WMD's his greatest enemy Iran would think before attacking him. Second, a point you made about him losing face in the Arab world is, I think, half right. I think, being the meglomaniac that he is, he took great pride in the perception that he alone amoung Arab countries was standing up to the last Superpower in the world.

[BadDad]

Couldnt France, Germany and Russia have made as much money, or even more billions in contracts than they were stealing with Saddam from the UN if Bush had allowed them to get future contracts in the rebuilding process? Just wondering.

61582[/snapback]

 

 

Of course they could but then that's something that's simply not going to happen as long as this administration is "staying the course". Ef the world.