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

[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. The time has come boys and girls ... 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. 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! 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.