One question of the supports of the Iraq war.

[bturk667]

Name me ONE terrorist attack, anywhere in the world, that Saddam was responsible for over the last fifteen years. I mean that CAN BE PROVEN! He must of masterminded it, choose the terrorist group to carry it out, and financed it!
Just ONE!

[zapr]

.......Kuwait, Israel?

[JSE]

OK, name me 3, just 3! Oh wait, I think Jordan also caught a couple of scuds. I might be wrong on this. SO....... Name me 4, just 4! Oh and Saudi caught some to. Granted they were intended to kill us but they (in my best Bush voice) were terroristic none-the-less. So,....... Give me 5, Just 5!

JSE :D

[bturk667]

Did you read the question? If that is your argument, then we are terrorists, aren't we?

[bturk667]

As a person who thinks he knows what the truth is, you really don't, do you? Your examples would them make us the biggest terrorists in thw world!

[JSE]

I give up!

JSE

[nobody]

Different question.

If you favor US pre-emptive strikes against those we feel may be threatening to us, should other countries have the same option? Why or why not?

[bturk667]

Good answer!

[bturk667]

Excellent question! I do not believe in pre-emptive strikes with the kind of evidence we were given by the Bush administration.

[tugmcmartin]

Objection! Leading the witness Your Honor.

With due respect bruno, it seems your equating the War with Iraq to the War on Terror. I think, and i admit i may be wrong here, that these are two different wars being fought on two different playing fields for two different reasons. Action on Iraq was based on Iraq's failure to live up to the 475,000 UN resolutions/sanctions that were enacted against the country. I don't think the Bush administration based the war on Iraq's role in terrorist activities. They certainly used potential to fuel terrorist activities as a small basis, but the main foundation for the argument for war against Iraq was the failure to live up to UN resolutions. I think this is even accurately reflected by the media. When there's news from the war front in Afghanistan you get the image on the TV screen with "War on Terror", but if it's an update from Iraq you get the image "War with Iraq". Anyway, just my opinion....

T-

[bturk667]

No, I am really not comparing the war with Iraq to the war on terrorism, per se. What I am trying to better understand is why it is that we went to war with Iraq in the first place. You bring up the 475,000 UN resolutions, it think there were actually fourteen. Correct me if I am wrong, but most of these, if not all, dealt with WMD. Since no WMD were found; then how many UN resloutions was Iraq in violation of? Did this, in and of itself, make the war an unjust one? I think so, but I know not all would agree.

If you take out the WMD argument - and so far you have to based on the evidence to date - then what other argument, or arguments, gave us the right and necessity to attack Iraq? Well, I thought maybe terrorism. So, I needed evidence, which I have not found, nor do I believe has the President and his administration found. For if they did, then they surely would have brought them up, no? Remember how in Bush's 2003 State OF the Union Address, he mentioned , on more than one occassion, Saddam and the 9/11 terrorist attacks, in the same sentence. Almost as if he was trying to link Saddam in some way with them; without actually coming out and saying it. Was he trying to plant a seed?

Again, I am just trying to better understand Bush, the war with Iraq, and why people, to this day, people still support Bush and his war with Iraq. It seems that the war on terror and the war with Iraq are completly different. Though I believe Bush did try to link the two. I, however, support the war on terror, as futile as I think it is, but I never have, nor will, support the war with Iraq.

[tugmcmartin]

No, I am really not comparing the war with Iraq to the war on terrorism, per se. What I am trying to better understand is why it is that we went to war with Iraq in the first place. You bring up the 475,000 UN resolutions, it think there were actually fourteen.
Yeah, 14 is right. That's an example of hyperbole. ;)


Correct me if I am wrong, but most of these, if not all, dealt with WMD. Since no WMD were found; then how many UN resloutions was Iraq in violation of? Did this, in and of itself, make the war an unjust one? I think so, but I know not all would agree.
I believe that a lot of those resolutions had to do with letting inspectors in to examine the alleged weapons programs and to check progress of dismantling, etc. So, given the fact that Saddam basically thumbed his nose at the UN and kept inspectors on the run for so long that maybe the war was justified on those terms alone. I don't believe that but a case could be made...


If you take out the WMD argument - and so far you have to based on the evidence to date - then what other argument, or arguments, gave us the right and necessity to attack Iraq? Well, I thought maybe terrorism. So, I needed evidence, which I have not found, nor do I believe has the President and his administration found. For if they did, then they surely would have brought them up, no? Remember how in Bush's 2003 State OF the Union Address, he mentioned , on more than one occassion, Saddam and the 9/11 terrorist attacks, in the same sentence. Almost as if he was trying to link Saddam in some way with them; without actually coming out and saying it. Was he trying to plant a seed?
What about the confirmed Al-Qaida training camps found in Iraq? That is certainly evidence (though i think weak at this point) that there may have been a connection.


Again, I am just trying to better understand Bush, the war with Iraq, and why people, to this day, people still support Bush and his war with Iraq. It seems that the war on terror and the war with Iraq are completly different. Though I believe Bush did try to link the two. I, however, support the war on terror, as futile as I think it is, but I never have, nor will, support the war with Iraq.
I think a lot of people can justify it and support it based on the fact that because Hussein was blocking UN inspections of the weapons programs he was in violation of the cease fire agreement reached after Gulf War 1.

T-

[piece-it pete]

I think a lot of people can justify it and support it based on the fact that because Hussein was blocking UN inspections of the weapons programs he was in violation of the cease fire agreement reached after Gulf War 1.

T-

The heart of the matter: enforcing the terms imposed by the winner on the loser of the gulf war. We've had bad experiences with letting these things go over the last 100 years!

Bruno, as far as I can see you're correct, there are no proven instances of Iraq being directly involved in a particular terrorist incident. Although I remember our intellegence agencies believing Iraq was behind an assasination attempt of a particular recent President - and we all know the CIA is never wrong :)!!

There is, however, overwhelming proof of multiple criminal acts done by a criminal gov't. If this criminal gov't was not in power at the time they were perpetrated they would be considered terrorist instead of "simply" criminal.

Hey wait a minute, Iraq was found guilty, along with Al Qaeda, for the bombing of the WTC in a civilian court in Chicago. But judges are only correct about homosexuals!

Pete

[bturk667]

The problem that I see with your argument about the UN weapons inspectors, is that we did not want to give them any more time. We told them that they had enough. We told them we could no longer wait. As it turns out we could. So since Saddam had no WMD, them one could say that the UN did their job well, very well!

I still do not see the necessity for the war. I believe it was an unjust one, but that's just me.

[bturk667]

Pete, seeing as I from Chicago, don't trust our courts!
As for the attempt on Bush's life. If the CI.A. found out about it, how well planned out could it have been.
If Iraq had a criminal government, what about the Chinese? Oh yeah, I forgot, we like the Chinese. Thanks Bill! Another @ssh*le!

[JSE]

[QUOTE=bturk667]The problem that I see with your argument about the UN weapons inspectors, is that we did not want to give them any more time. We told them that they had enough. We told them we could no longer wait. As it turns out we could. So since Saddam had no WMD, them one could say that the UN did their job well, very well!

I still do not see the necessity for the war. I believe it was an unjust one, but that's just me.[/QUOT

How can a war in which we set free millions of people from a Dictator that raped, tortured, abused, and killed his own people at the drop of a dime, be the wrong thing to do? You can call it "unjust" all you want but the fact is, is was the right thing to do. We helped millions of people. You can continue to dwell on the WMD issues but there was much more to this war than WMD.

JSE

[bturk667]

You should stick to your word, unlike the President. I thought you gave up?
However, I will answer your question. It was an unjust war because we attacked another country without provication, that is how! If you are so worried about the millions of people in Iraq, well how about the BILLIONS in CHINA! Should we go over and attack the Chinese? The have and are still are commiting mass genecide!

THE WAR WITH IRAQ IS AND ALWAYS WILL BE AN UNJUST ONE!!!

Take away the WMD issue, the fact that there are no links between Saddam and Terrorism- You were wrong when you gave your examples. For if you were right don't you think President Bush and his administration would have used them as anthor issue for justifying the war with Iraq? -and all you have left is AN UNJUST WAR!!!

[JSE]

You should stick to your word, unlike the President. I thought you gave up?
However, I will answer your question. It was an unjust war because we attacked another country without provication, that is how! If you are so worried about the millions of people in Iraq, well how about the BILLIONS in CHINA! Should we go over and attack the Chinese? The have and are still are commiting mass genecide!

THE WAR WITH IRAQ IS AND ALWAYS WILL BE AN UNJUST ONE!!!

Take away the WMD issue, the fact that there are no links between Saddam and Terrorism- You were wrong when you gave your examples. For if you were right don't you think President Bush and his administration would have used them as anthor issue for justifying the war with Iraq? -and all you have left is AN UNJUST WAR!!!

We attacked Iraq without provication? What about the 12 years of defying UN resolutions and refusing to cooperate with US or any other country for that matter. Ooops, they did cooperate with France, Russia and Germany we are learning. Iraq refused to prove they destroyed their WMD which we and the rest of the world knew they had. As someone else mentioned, we gave it to them. So, if they destroyed it, why not prove it. Of course if they did not destroy it and smuggled it into another country, then that would have been a problem. Back to the UN resolutions. Based on UN resolutions from the first Gulf War, we had every right to go into Iraq this time. The original resolutions gave us that right. The resolutions that we sought just before the 2nd War which failed were more of a PR issue. We technically did not need them. We had the authority regardless.

Again, you can say the War was unjust and keep throwing WMD and Terrorism out there but in the end, it's just your opinion. The fact is, we had authority to go in. Was it the right thing to do, well that's open for discussion. Was the war unjust? No.

JSE

[bturk667]

You make me laugh! Those were UN resolutions, not U.S. See the difference, Mr. FACTS?
The U.N. did ask for more time so their weapons inspectors could do their job. Our response: No, we have waited too long. What, was Bush and his adminastrtion worried that the truth would come out if they did their jobs? What truth? That Saddam HAD NO WMD!!! Still have not found any, have we?

What gave us the authority? Who gave us the so-called authority, not the U.N.

Based on FACTS, your opinion that the war was just, is just plain WRONG, period!!!
Spin it anyway you want to. It does not make it just!

Have a nice day!

[JSE]

You make me laugh! Those were UN resolutions, not U.S. See the difference, Mr. FACTS?
The U.N. did ask for more time so their weapons inspectors could do their job. Our response: No, we have waited too long. What, was Bush and his adminastrtion worried that the truth would come out if they did their jobs? What truth? That Saddam HAD NO WMD!!! Still have not found any, have we?

What gave us the authority? Who gave us the so-called authority, not the U.N.

Based on FACTS, your opinion that the war was just, is just plain WRONG, period!!!
Spin it anyway you want to. It does not make it just!

Have a nice day!

You're right. I base my opinion on facts, not conjecture or emotion. You also hit the nail on the head in that, regardless of what the facts are, someone can spin anything any way. I just prefer to start with the facts, not an emotional reaction. Let's just agree to disagree.

JSE

[zapr]

..........The United States keeps the world at bay. Let it be known!...........Zapr.

[jeskibuff]

Bruno,
Have you even taken a cursory look at those U.N. resolutions? Here's a little help for you: http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/11/08/resolution.text/

In case you don't feel like reading them, I put together a Cliff's Note version for you:
Recognizing the threat Iraq's noncompliance with Council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660...and all relevant resolutions subsequent to Resolution 660 Deploring the fact that Iraq has not provided an accurate, full, final, and complete disclosure, as required by resolution 687 (1991), of all aspects of its programmes to develop weapons of mass destruction Deploring further that Iraq repeatedly obstructed immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access to sites...and...failed to cooperate fully and unconditionally with UNSCOM and IAEA weapons inspectors,...and ultimately ceased all cooperation with UNSCOM and the IAEA the Government of Iraq has failed to comply with its commitments pursuant to resolution 687 (1991) with regard to terrorism, pursuant to resolution 688 (1991) to end repression of its civilian population ...expressing the gravest concern at the continued failure by the Government of Iraq to provide confirmation of the arrangements as laid out...Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations...Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions Decides...to afford Iraq, by this resolution, a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations Decides that, in order to begin to comply with its disarmament obligations,...the Government of Iraq shall provide to UNMOVIC, the IAEA, and the Council, not later than 30 days from the date of this resolution, a currently accurate, full, and complete declaration of all aspects of its programmes to develop chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, and other delivery systems Decides that false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq pursuant to this resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq's obligations Recalls...that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations
Well, guess what, Bruno?? Saddam played games with the UN for 12 years and thumbed his nose at all those resolutions made by the world community. He was brazen enough to fire at our planes flying in the designated no-fly zones. The UN was a paper tiger...making rules and threatening action, but never making good on its threats. Saddam knew he could get away with almost everything with the UN. Would you respect your local police if they sequestered themselves in the safety of their precinct stations while they promised to apprehend the bank robbers and murderers? It's time to get a clue about the UN, Bruno...they are practically a worthless and toothless organization. If they can't do their job, a job that is supposed to ensure the peace and security of the world, then someone should step in and do it. That's precisely what GWB did. The Taliban didn't think we were serious. They've been put out of business. Saddam thought GWB was issuing more of Clinton's hollow threats. He's got a different perspective now, doesn't he? And NOW we're seeing positive results, with Libya opening access to and destroying their WMD pursuits.

You can call GWB a cowboy, but WHO CARES what you think?? He's taken action where others feared to tread. You may not "feel" safer, but GWB doesn't care about your insecurities, mainly because they're unfounded. He's done things to make our nation safer. If you don't think we're safer with Al-Qaeda on the run, a ruthless dictator out of business and confirmed terrorists like Khaddafy plopping his "guns" on the table, then I have no idea WHAT would make you feel safer.

If you thought that GWB's "War On Terror" would bring instant peace to the world, you know NOTHING about the nature of war. It took years and great sacrifice to drive Hitler to his demise. If we were transported back in time to June 6th 1944, you would be complaining that the D-Day invasion was a crime...that thousands of men died needlessly. The trouble is, you're SO myopic, you are unable to see beyond the immediate timeframe. You can't seem to realize that evil left unchecked is a far greater danger than the cost of containing it when you have the power to do so.

The U.N. did ask for more time so their weapons inspectors could do their job. Our response: No, we have waited too long.First of all, the inspectors only got back in because GWB was forceful. Saddam capitulated, but then reverted to playing the same old games he was used to playing. He had ample time to get his act together and comply. He could watch the international news reports of aircraft carriers being dispatched to his neighborhood. He could get the play-by-play of troop buildup and the negotiations with Turkey for setting up air bases there. The trouble was that he was too familiar with paper tigers like Clinton and the U.N. Despite all the build-up and the recent lesson taught to the Taliban, he still thought we were bluffing. That's the problem with idle threats, isn't it?

GWB did the right thing. He waved a big stick and demanded compliance. When there was no compliance, he used the stick. If he HADN'T used the stick, America's credibility would have no substance and more nations would follow in Iraq's footsteps...i.e., flaunt the U.S., watch the U.S. make idle threats, then watch the U.S. back down from the threat. Following your scheme (going easy on Saddam), Libya would be emboldened by Iraq's actions. Following GWB's scheme, Libya decides that the pursuit of WMD and terrorism isn't in her best interest. Thanks to GWB, the world's a safer place! You'll continue to deny that fact, but even if GWB was travelling the nation, walking on water and healing lepers, you'd still insist that he is evil incarnate! You incessant Bush-bashers are just too predictable!

[bturk667]

I am not any more predictable than you Bush @SS kissers!
Evidently you feel it is perfectly acceptable for Bush to act unilaterally, I do not. Also, as I wrote to JSE, these were UN resolutions, not U.S. Since the U.S. is part of the U.N. then logic would dictate that the U.N. should have, at the very least, given us permission to attack Iraq in the enforcement of THEIR resolutions, which they did not.

I never said, or set a scheme, to go easy on Saddam. If I had my way Bush the elder would have taken him out during Desert Storm! Why didn't he, oh yeah the U.N., at least he didn't think that he was bigger than the rest of the world! Also, I never would have supported him in the first place in the early 80's, thanks Ronnie ray-gun for that!

Lastly, you say the world is a safer place, BULL$H!TT. Yeah, maybe if your not one of our brave soilders over there it is! Funny, Bush so his cowardice by running into the National Guard, yet has no problem sending troops to fight his unjust war! Do you really know how OUR world we be a safer place? We should have listened to Thomas Jefferson!!!

So by all means, continue your support of the Cowardly Bush. I on the other hand never will!

[jack70]

Evidently you feel it is perfectly acceptable for Bush to act unilaterally, I do not
Do you have the same opinion of France and other countries acting (unilaterally) in Liberia and other places around the globe?

Did you have the same opinion of Clinton acting (unilaterally) in Bosnia?

Do you have the same opinion about the 2-5 billion of our tax money Clinton spent (unilaterally) to "stabilize" Haiti in his administration? BTW, lotta good that did... we could'a given it to the people directly instead of down the rathole.



I never said, or set a scheme, to go easy on Saddam. If I had my way Bush the elder would have taken him out during Desert Storm! Why didn't he, oh yeah the U.N.
Then you ADMIT that following that UN-type approach to Iraq was a failure? Don't you learn anything? The UN is one of the most corrupt bodies in history. Except for an occasional food, humanitarian, or emergency relief mission, they are a joke. They are little more than a "hate America" club by all the worlds third-world corrupt-totalitarian banana-republics.



Bush so his cowardice by running into the National Guard
Funny, I remember Clinton lying (his "loathing the military" letter) to avoid the military, yet you didn't protest when HE ordered troops (unilaterally) into Bosnia or other hot spots. Funny, I remember John Kerry saying that if he'd been a year or 2 older, and seen the war (in 68) as the mess it had become by then, he would probably NOT have joined as he did earlier... he would, in fact, probably done what Bush did in 68... avoid the war. So Bush is smarter than you give him credit for... he acted with the same mixed feelings & questions about the war that Kerry did after being there in the early going. But don't confuse the issue by saying Bush didn't risk his life by becoming a fighter pilot. You have no clue about how difficult & dangerous that is. What Clinton did...vs what Bush did, in regard to Vietnam, are quite different.



Lastly, you say the world is a safer place, BULL$H!TT.
How many people, in the months following 9-11, expected ANOTHER major attack against the US sometime in the next year or 2? 90%? ...95%? ...100%?

Do you think it's co-incidence that Al Quaida has been on the run and in disarray from how it operated prior to 9-11? Do you think it's co-incidence that Pakistan has gotten those hard-core Islamic extremists out of it's intelligence system, and is now helping us target those hard-to-access areas in the Hindu Kush? You think that the fact terrorists are entering Iraq (& being killed there), instead of the U.S. is a BAD thing for us?

You need to read Rumsfeld's detailed written thoughts about how complex, long, and difficult this war will be. It's quite chilling, and lucid. The media tries to make it like a quick & simple electronic game. It's not.

[jeskibuff]

The UN is one of the most corrupt bodies in history...They are little more than a "hate America" club by all the worlds third-world corrupt-totalitarian banana-republics.We kind of touched on this in the electoral college discussion. http://forums.audioreview.com/showthread.php?t=2069&page=1 What's happened is that "democracy" in such an organization ran amuck. Bad member states form an unholy alliance and instead of aiming to better the world, vote for measures that are against justice. How else can you explain that the U.S. gets denied a seat on the Human Rights Commission, but a country like Syria so entwined in terrorism gets a spot? Read Jeane Kirkpatrick's May 2003 article here. (http://www.aei.org/news/filter.all,newsID.17205/news_detail.asp) She says some pretty damning things about the U.N., like "many of the world's worst human rights abusers sit in judgment on governments that have long institutionalized the rule of law and respect for individual rights and fundamental freedoms" and "Russia voted almost exactly as it had during the Cold War, in association with the same countries--almost all of which were the dictatorships present in the commission."


You need to read Rumsfeld's detailed written thoughts about how complex, long, and difficult this war will be.Baaad jack! ;) Got a reference link to these?

I am not any more predictable than you Bush @SS kissers!Oh, you're quite predictable, Bruno! Even to the point of resorting to derogatory name-calling when you find you're out of ammunition in a discussion! And the way I see it, myself and Bush "supporters" like P-I-Pete, JSE, Tug and Jack have not lavished 100% praise on Bush. We have all criticized him in some way, but we understand that no one is going to do things exactly the way WE feel they should be done. Some of us have also said nice things about people in the opposition party. Hey, I've even said that Clinton got some things right! :rolleyes: :D The problem with you Bush-haters is that you let your hatred control your every opinion. You don't really care what's best for the country...you want what's best for your liberal theories, no matter whether they've already been proven to be failures in other parts of the world (socialism, for instance). You don't have ANY objectivity and THAT FACT greatly diminishes your credibility, as everything you say is terribly tainted by your unwavering biases.

[bturk667]

I have a problem when any nation acts unilaterally on the behalf of an organization that did not give them the right to.

Bosnia? That was a NATO action, which we lead.

Economically help a country (unilaterally) and going to war (unilaterally) are two totally different things. I hope you can understand the difference, otherwise "you don't know ...jack." I did not mention how much Bush is spending in Iraq, did I?

Why must people always bring up someone else, and what they did, when talking about Bush! Bush was a coward, plain and simple! Was Clinto a coward, of course. Though I am not quite sure what one has do with the other?
If Kerry were a year or two older. Now your making me laugh! He was not a year or two older was he? Try try as you might, BUSH RAN, KERRY FOUGHT!!!!

Bush in not smarter than I give him credit for. I never gave him any kind of credit for his intelligence!

Lastly, I did not say, I wrote about the world being safer, and that being BULL$HIT! Know, did I write the WORLD did I not? You are writing about the U.S. These are to different things! They are seperate issues! I was responding to what jeskibuff wrote. I do not feel the world is safer. I do however feel that we, the U.S., are safer!

I wonder if you know jack?

[bturk667]

Out of ammunition, I doubt that. How could I possibly be when Bush is still President. As long as he is, I will have plenty of weapons!

See jeskibuff, I have no problems with Republicans, per se. I have a problem with Bush and his administration; they just happen to be Republicans. I had a problem with Clinton in a big way. Did this make me a conservative? Please, answer that question for me, please!!!

Why do I have to be objective? Why do I have to have credibilty? Bush is the one who needs to have these two things. Sadly, I feel he does not. If you do, great!

Lastly, my theories are not liberal, they are based on the facts at hand! As new facts come to light, my theories might change. This, however, will depend on those facts. I do not see the world as Liberal or Conservative, only as right and wrong. Know sometimes the facts seem to lean one way more than the other, but this does not mean I do. If this is the conclusion you came up with, well, your wrong. There are many issues where I have a decidedly Conservative stance! Again, I let the issues, facts, and my heart and mind dictate where I stand. The problem is that there are too many people in our country that let their party affiliations make up their minds for them, too bad!

Have a nice day!

[FLZapped]

I have a problem when any nation acts unilaterally on the behalf of an organization that did not give them the right to.



Uhm, what about Great Britian and the thirty-some-odd other nations that took part??

Sorry, but this unilateral talk was long ago dismissed as incorrect.

I also don't understand your point about thinking it was OK to go into Bosnia under NATO, but not Iraq under UN sanction.

While I don't agree with everything Bush has done, I'm sure in the hell not going to vote for Kerry. His rhetoric and his record are completely out of sync. Besides the fact that he is a socialist who would have the citizens of this country looking to the government for their daily existance, while gutting our military and intelligence agencies. So I will once again be crossing party lines.

-Bruce

[bturk667]

If were not involved in the war in Iraq, then how many of those nation do you think would have gone it alone? I mean, do you think they would have attacked, and gone to war with Iraq over the U.N. resolutions?

If you can not understand the difference between a Nato lead operation (in Bosnia) and us attacking Iraq without the full support of the U.N. (only using U.N. sanctions as an argument), well then, there is nothing that I could write to help you to understand the differences. Remember, we were going to attack Iraq NO MATTER WHAT THE U.N. decided. Both Bush and Powell made perfectly clear to the entire world.
One question: Do you see the difference between what Geroge W. Bush is doing in Iraq, and what his father Geroge H.W. Bush did in Iraq, and how they did it?

If you feel that you must cross party lines in the upcoming election, then by all means, go right ahead! It is your right to do so!

[JSE]

"If were not involved in the war in Iraq, then how many of those nation do you think would have gone it alone? I mean, do you think they would have attacked, and gone to war with Iraq over the U.N. resolutions? "

No they probably would not have gone into Iraq. But, you must remember that the US is the backbone of the UN. Without the US, the UN would probably crumble or at least be a non factor. I don't even think we should be a member of the UN.

Did other countries want Saddam out of power? Absolutely. Could they do anything about it without the US? Nope. There were three countries opposed to us going into Iraq. We are no learing that they had a vested interest in leaving Saddam in power. Why should we the US bow down to their wants? That's crazy.

"If you can not understand the difference between a Nato lead operation (in Bosnia) and us attacking Iraq without the full support of the U.N. (only using U.N. sanctions as an argument), well then, there is nothing that I could write to help you to understand the differences."

Do you really think NATO would have gone in without the US? I doubt it.

JSE

[bturk667]

We should have listened to Thomas Jefferson, but it is too late for that!

Should or shouldn't we be a member of the U.N. is a different issue. There comes a time when every nation must look in what direction the rest of the world is going in; so we can support and help one another. These are what groups like the U.N. and NATO are all about. Somtimes they are going to do things that might not be beneficial to us. Politics on a global scale are not easy. So, if we do not like what the U.N. is doing, what, were suppose to take our ball and go home? It seems to me that we can not have it both ways.

One questions: Why does Bush now want the support, both in man power and in money, of the U.N.?

A remark to one of your statements:" Why should we the US bow down to their wants?" It is this type of attitude that lead to the 9/11attack. This very arrogance is why there are so many countries around the world that hate us, and would also like nothing more than to see harm befall us!

I not so sure if the French, Germans, and Russians wanted Saddam out of power. I'm not even sure if we are better off without him in power. Better to deal with the DEVIL you know, then to deal with the one you don not know. Remember, Saddam was not a religious man. An @$$hole and piece of $h!t, sure! Islamic extremists are a much greater threat to not only us, the Middle East, but to the entire world. The number of terrorist groups now in Iraq has never been greater. Moire and more terrorists keep pouring in. With him in power that was never really an issue. We are going to be in Iraq for the long haul!

Was there mass genocide going on in Bosnia at the time NATO sent troops?
Seems to me we had to go there, if only for humanitarian reasons, if nothing else! Yes, I know that NATO would have gone in with or with out us. They didn't have to did they? I for one am glad we went in. I have first hand knowledge of what it is like in both Kosovo and Bosnia.

Hey JSE, I supported Bush when he attacked Afghanistan. I also support him on his war against terrorism, as futile as that maybe. In fact i'm going to work for Homeland Security, part time, while I attend junior college; never too late to better yourself. Better watch what you put in those bags of yours!!! I did not support the war with Iraq! I do however think we have to stay there for the long haul. I also want them to pay us back the money that we are spending in rebuilding their country. Another area I disagree with Bush!

[JSE]

"One questions: Why does Bush now want the support, both in man power and in money, of the U.N.? "

This more a international political move. Trust me, other nations are chomping at the bit to help out in Iraq. It's big money. Look at the left's whipping post Haliburton.

"A remark to one of your statements:" Why should we the US bow down to their wants?" It is this type of attitude that lead to the 9/11attack. This very arrogance is why there are so many countries around the world that hate us, and would also like nothing more than to see harm befall us!"

I guess that's one area we fundamentally differ. I don't feel the US should "first" worry about what other countries think of us. We need to do what's best for us before we start giving into other's wants. France hates us? I can live with that.

"Was there mass genocide going on in Bosnia at the time NATO sent troops?
Seems to me we had to go there, if only for humanitarian reasons, if nothing else! Yes, I know that NATO would have gone in with or with out us. They didn't have to did they? I for one am glad we went in. I have first hand knowledge of what it is like in both Kosovo and Bosnia. "

What about the genocide that was going on in Iraq under Saddam? We are still finding massive burial sites. Why are humanitarian reasons OK for Bosnia and not Iraq? Bosnia was not threat to us.

"The number of terrorist groups now in Iraq has never been greater. Moire and more terrorists keep pouring in. With him in power that was never really an issue. We are going to be in Iraq for the long haul!"

As someone else mentioned. I am glad all those terrorist are going to Iraq. It could not have worked out any better. We have done the impossible. We have taken terrorsim to another front where our military can hunt them down and kill them. That's one of the biggest problems with terrorism. You never know when or where they will attack. We have drawn them into a country, despite media coverage, that is under our military's control.



JSE

[bturk667]

Good question! What genocide was going on in Iraq prior to our attacking? Please answer, and I want proof!

If there was any genocide going on prior, or at the time we were invading Iraq, I am sure that the President would have made us aware of them. What you are talking about happened well before we attacked them.

Do you realize how many of those people were put into those mass graves because of the fact that George H.W. Bush did not live up to his promise that he would help the ****e Muslims and Kurds in overthrowing Saddam? Most! What dio you think that George H.W. Bush thought Saddam was going to do to those who failed in their attempted to overthrow him; Say:"Better luck next time." before or after he killed them?

Now, if the President would have told the world we must get Saddam out because of his ill treatment of his people, and only that reason, well then, you would have a leg to stand on. Since he did not, try not to fall over! His major argument was not that, it was the WMD! How has that worked out for him?

You really have no clue about terrorism do you? Try to read a book or two on the subject matter. Try to become more educated before you try to write about things you do not fully understand.

Lastly, remember when Bush talked about other countries adding terrorist, and how this was grounds for us to attack them? Do you know which boarder those terrorists are cross over? Do you know what the government of that country is doing to stop the terrorists from crossing over their boarder?

Can't wait for your responses to my question. Should be fun reading!

[JSE]

"Good question! What genocide was going on in Iraq prior to our attacking? Please answer, and I want proof!"

I think you answered your own question with the whole mass grave thing?

"Do you realize how many of those people were put into those mass graves because of the fact that George H.W. Bush did not live up to his promise that he would help the ****e Muslims and Kurds in overthrowing Saddam?"

So now it's Bush Sr's fault that Saddam murdered, tortured, raped and gassed his own people. Ah, it's so much clearer now. I am getting the picture you don't like any BUSH? (ok, that sounds bad. I ment the Bush family)

"Now, if the President would have told the world we must get Saddam out because of his ill treatment of his people, and only that reason, well then, you would have a leg to stand on. Since he did not, try not to fall over! His major argument was not that, it was the WMD! How has that worked out for him?"

Let's see. You seem to have supported the US/NATO going into Bosnia because it was based on Humanitarian reasons. But, even though the people of Iraq were being gassed, tortured, raped, etc, it was an unjust WAR because "GW" supposedly lied to us. That does not changed the fact that the people in Iraq were suffering. Reagardless of why Bush stated we were going in, it should not change the fact that Iraq needed our help based on your comments.

It sounds like you just hate Bush and nothing he does will ever be excepted by you. It sounds like you calling the War "unjust" is based on your hatred of Bush. The reason you get taken to point so often in these forums is because most people here see you for what you are, A Bush Hater. And that's fine BUT, you let it cloud your judegment on other World issues. You say the War in Iraq was unjust, but you say the US going into Bosnia was ok? They both were in grave need of Humanitarian help.

So again, I asked you, why are humanitarian reasons OK for Bosnia and not Iraq? Even if you think the President lied to us about why we were going in, based on your recent post it still should have been OK based on humantarian reasons.

"You really have no clue about terrorism do you? Try to read a book or two on the subject matter. Try to become more educated before you try to write about things you do not fully understand."

Really, what don't I understand Mr. Homeland Security? You said I have no clue. Enlighten me! You say I need to read a book or two. What books would you recommend. Hurry up, do an Amazon search so you can tell me some.

You are always saying, "Show me proof". The proof is right in front of you. You just can't see it through those "Bush Hater" glasses you have on. Learn to look past your hatred of Bush and your opinions will be taken more seriously.


JSE

[FLZapped]

If were not involved in the war in Iraq, then how many of those nation do you think would have gone it alone? I mean, do you think they would have attacked, and gone to war with Iraq over the U.N. resolutions?

Excuse me? That has nothing to do with it, the fact is, our action was NOT unilateral, period. You can't admit that though, can you?



If you can not understand the difference between a Nato lead operation (in Bosnia) and us attacking Iraq without the full support of the U.N. (only using U.N. sanctions as an argument), well then, there is nothing that I could write to help you to understand the differences.

I understand this: either our actions were unilateral, or not - and they weren't, no matter how you try to slice it.



One question: Do you see the difference between what Geroge W. Bush is doing in Iraq, and what his father Geroge H.W. Bush did in Iraq, and how they did it?


Yeah, both followed approved UN resolutions(which is why Bush Sr. stopped when he did), had the mandate from Congress, and had formed a coalition of nations.

-Bruce

[FLZapped]

So now it's Bush Sr's fault that Saddam murdered, tortured, raped and gassed his own people. Ah, it's so much clearer now. I am getting the picture you don't like any BUSH? (ok, that sounds bad. I ment the Bush family)

It sounds like you just hate Bush and nothing he does will ever be excepted by you. I


You are always saying, "Show me proof". The proof is right in front of you. You just can't see it through those "Bush Hater" glasses you have on. Learn to look past your hatred of Bush and your opinions will be taken more seriously.


JSE

Seems to me that pretty well sums it up. He would still be pissing blood had Bush decided NOT to go into Iraq.

-Bruce

[bturk667]

I guess we will just have to agree to disagree!

[bturk667]

Why is it so hard for you to answer a question? Again, what mass genocide was going on at the time of our attack? Please answer and you facts!

Fact: Had George H. W. Bush overthrown Saddam, the people that were put into those mass graves as a result of him NOT doing so, would not have been killed and put in there!!! How can I make this claim? Because Saddam would not have been kept in power therefore he would not have been able to committe those atrocities, and the others he did later!!! This has nothing to do with hating Bush the elder, in fact I liked him! These are however the facts!

Again, reread the arguments given by Bush as to why wqe went to war. Try to stick to the facts!!!! You wrote about how you will look at the facts, do you?
How else can I put this; there WAS NO MASS GENOCIDE GOING ON AT THE TIME OF OUR UNJUST WAR5!!!

Two questions for you: Did you support the Nato action in Bosnia? Please answer!
Would you support a war against China. The biggest perpetraters of mass genocide currently going on in the world!

[bturk667]

Sums what up? Who would still be pissing blood?

[JSE]

1. "I guess we will just have to agree to disagree!"

Or not. LOL!

Have a good one. LOL!


JSE

[bturk667]

What ever!