The Iraq / war on terror thread

[journey]

Anyone? And if you do, why not pick up a gun and blow-up people and get shot at to spread democracy in the Middle East?

I never thought it was a good idea to begin with. It was unsettling to me when Bush initiated the War in Iraq. And when presidents invade a country, they don't do it to give the people in that opposing country democracy. There's something in it for them. But there's the WMDs excuse. If Iraq was a threat to the U.S. in 2003, then they were a threat in 2002-- 1999 or any year prior. What it comes down to: Iraq is a weak country with a lot of oil.

[sandman]

Anyone? And if you do, why not pick up a gun and blow-up people and get shot at to spread democracy in the Middle East?

I never thought it was a good idea to begin with. It was unsettling to me when Bush initiated the War in Iraq. And when presidents invade a country, they don't do it to give the people in that opposing country democracy. There's something in it for them. But there's the WMDs excuse. If Iraq was a threat to the U.S. in 2003, then they were a threat in 2002-- 1999 or any year prior. What it comes down to: Iraq is a weak country with a lot of oil.

you're exactly right. iraq was a HUGE threat to the U.S. in the 90's. but clinton was a pussy and didn't have the balls to do anything significant about it. so he decided to bomb a drug factory in the middle of the night (and kill innocent civilians by incorrectly assuming no one would be working there at night). it was worthless.

so in light of the devestation on 9/11 (since clinton did not take care of bin laden when he had the chance), bush realized we had to eliminate all major threats to the U.S.

[SLCPUNK]

Anyone? And if you do, why not pick up a gun and blow-up people and get shot at to spread democracy in the Middle East?

I never thought it was a good idea to begin with. It was unsettling to me when Bush initiated the War in Iraq. And when presidents invade a country, they don't do it to give the people in that opposing country democracy. There's something in it for them. But there's the WMDs excuse. If Iraq was a threat to the U.S. in 2003, then they were a threat in 2002-- 1999 or any year prior. What it comes down to: Iraq is a weak country with a lot of oil.

you're exactly right. iraq was a HUGE threat to the U.S. in the 90's. but clinton was a pussy and didn't have the balls to do anything significant about it. so he decided to bomb a drug factory in the middle of the night (and kill innocent civilians by incorrectly assuming no one would be working there at night). it was worthless.

so in light of the devestation on 9/11 (since clinton did not take care of bin laden when he had the chance), bush realized we had to eliminate all major threats to the U.S.

False.

Saddam was never a threat to us in the 90's.

Clinton bombing was in retaliation for a terror attack of the USA embassy bombings. He bombed the wrong place, on bad information, or on pupose. Either way, it was a mistake.

It was Bush I who did not go in and get Saddam when he had the chance. He made his reasons well known in his book.

You are trying to link two or three things together here that are not connected.

You claim Clinton didn't take care of Saddam, because he was a pussy and "didn't have the balls". Although Saddam did not attack our embassy. Then you claim that Clinton did not get Osama when he had the chance (I thought you claimed Saddam was the big threat in the 90s?). Then after 9-11, Osama attacked us, and Bush kicked ass by going in and doing the job "clinton didn't do" by attacking the man who had nothing to do with 9-11.

Brilliant.

 

[RichardNixon]

Anyone? And if you do, why not pick up a gun and blow-up people and get shot at to spread democracy in the Middle East?

I never thought it was a good idea to begin with. It was unsettling to me when Bush initiated the War in Iraq. And when presidents invade a country, they don't do it to give the people in that opposing country democracy. There's something in it for them. But there's the WMDs excuse. If Iraq was a threat to the U.S. in 2003, then they were a threat in 2002-- 1999 or any year prior. What it comes down to: Iraq is a weak country with a lot of oil.

you're exactly right. iraq was a HUGE threat to the U.S. in the 90's. but clinton was a pussy and didn't have the balls to do anything significant about it. so he decided to bomb a drug factory in the middle of the night (and kill innocent civilians by incorrectly assuming no one would be working there at night). it was worthless.

so in light of the devestation on 9/11 (since clinton did not take care of bin laden when he had the chance), bush realized we had to eliminate all major threats to the U.S.

That's just horseshit. Iraq was NEVER a threat to the US. And THERE ARE NO LINKS BETWEEN SADDAM AND THE 911 ATTACKS, NONE, ZERO.

Bush and his puppet-masters just used that terrible tragedy as an excuse to invade Iraq, on the pretense of WMD. The purpose of the invation was WMD, not to free the Iaqi people.

For Gods sake, there are tons of dictators all over the world who torture people daily. If Bush is so concerned with the plight of the Iraqi?s under Saddam, why not free all oppressed people?

Do you honestly think, for one second that we would have invaded Iraq if it wasn't sitting on Oil?

[SLCPUNK]

Anyone? And if you do, why not pick up a gun and blow-up people and get shot at to spread democracy in the Middle East?

I never thought it was a good idea to begin with. It was unsettling to me when Bush initiated the War in Iraq. And when presidents invade a country, they don't do it to give the people in that opposing country democracy. There's something in it for them. But there's the WMDs excuse. If Iraq was a threat to the U.S. in 2003, then they were a threat in 2002-- 1999 or any year prior. What it comes down to: Iraq is a weak country with a lot of oil.

you're exactly right. iraq was a HUGE threat to the U.S. in the 90's. but clinton was a pussy and didn't have the balls to do anything significant about it. so he decided to bomb a drug factory in the middle of the night (and kill innocent civilians by incorrectly assuming no one would be working there at night). it was worthless.

so in light of the devestation on 9/11 (since clinton did not take care of bin laden when he had the chance), bush realized we had to eliminate all major threats to the U.S.

That's just horseshit. Iraq was NEVER a threat to the US. And THERE ARE NO LINKS BETWEEN SADDAM AND THE 911 ATTACKS, NONE, ZERO.

Bush and his puppet-masters just used that terrible tragedy as an excuse to invade Iraq, on the pretense of WMD. The purpose of the invation was WMD, not to free the Iaqi people.

For Gods sake, there are tons of dictators all over the world who are tortured daily. If Bush is so concerned with the plight of the Iraqi?s under Saddam, why not free all oppressed people?

Do you honestly think, for one second that we would have invaded Iraq if it wasn't sitting on Oil?

NOPE.

Think Bush is ever going to utter the words "Liberate Sudan from their ethnic cleansing in Darfur campaign"?

Hell no he ain't.

[RichardNixon]

Bush is America's Nero. He is a total and complete failure in every possible way. I hope he gets impeached.

[SLCPUNK]

By T. Christian Miller

Los Angeles Times


WASHINGTON ? The United States will halt construction work on some water and power plants in Iraq because it is running out of money for projects, officials said yesterday.

Security costs have cut into the funds available to complete some major infrastructure projects that were started under the $18.4 billion U.S. plan to rebuild Iraq. As a result, the United States has had to pare back some projects to only those deemed essential by the Iraqi government.

While no overall figures are yet available, one contractor has stopped work on six of eight water-treatment plants it was assigned.

"We have scaled back our projects in many areas," James Jeffrey, a senior adviser on Iraq for the State Department, told lawmakers at a hearing of the House Appropriations Foreign Operations Subcommittee. "We do not have the money."

Bipartisan frustrations

More than two years after Congress approved funding for the rebuilding effort, electricity and oil production remain at or below pre-war levels; and unemployment remains high. The slow pace of progress appeared to exasperate both Democratic and Republican lawmakers, who compared the situation with the Bush administration's handling of damage from Hurricane Katrina.

Both situations reflected a lack of planning, poor execution and a failure by senior White House officials to follow through on commitments, Democrats said.

"We can't seem to get (Iraqi rebuilding) right. We see it in Katrina, the lack of leadership, the lack of coordination," said Rep. Nita M. Lowey, D-N.Y., the ranking Democrat on the subcommittee.

"It seems sort of almost incomprehensible to me that we haven't been able to do better on" restoring power to Iraq, said Rep. Don Sherwood, R-Penn., who recently visited areas damaged by Katrina. "Coming back up through Mississippi and Louisiana after being down on some relief effort, you know, when power shuts down, everything shuts down."

Rep. Jim Kolbe, R-Ariz., who has previously criticized the Iraq rebuilding effort, said the Bush administration's vision for using reconstruction funds to stabilize Iraq "was largely a chimera, a castle built of sand."

"Reconstruction in Iraq has been slower, more painful, more complex, more fragmented and more inefficient than anyone in Washington or Baghdad could have imagined a couple of years ago," said Kolbe, chairman of the subcommittee.

Security diversions

U.S. officials said security costs ? now estimated to account for 22 percent of all reconstruction contracts ? had forced them to redirect money to pay for weapons and training of Iraqi troops.

They said that the United States was now spending $150 million per week on reconstruction, and that more work was flowing directly to Iraqi contractors instead of U.S. multinational firms.

They also said some infrastructure projects handed over to the Iraqis had suffered because of Iraqi government funding shortfalls. As a result, U.S. funds have been directed to simply maintaining electricity and water plants the Iraqis can't afford to operate.

"The last thing we wanted to do ... is to put hundreds of millions of dollars in power generating plants and into water plants and then have them simply not work, or simply have them run down," Jeffrey said.

Another concern is corruption. Stuart Bowen, the special inspector general for Iraq reconstruction, said his office is conducting 58 criminal investigations in Iraq, including several that are close to prosecution. So far, a handful of U.S. contractors have faced criminal charges.

[POPmetal]

Anyone? And if you do, why not pick up a gun and blow-up people and get shot at to spread democracy in the Middle East?

I never thought it was a good idea to begin with. It was unsettling to me when Bush initiated the War in Iraq. And when presidents invade a country, they don't do it to give the people in that opposing country democracy. There's something in it for them. But there's the WMDs excuse. If Iraq was a threat to the U.S. in 2003, then they were a threat in 2002-- 1999 or any year prior. What it comes down to: Iraq is a weak country with a lot of oil.

you're exactly right. iraq was a HUGE threat to the U.S. in the 90's. but clinton was a pussy and didn't have the balls to do anything significant about it. so he decided to bomb a drug factory in the middle of the night (and kill innocent civilians by incorrectly assuming no one would be working there at night). it was worthless.

so in light of the devestation on 9/11 (since clinton did not take care of bin laden when he had the chance), bush realized we had to eliminate all major threats to the U.S.

False.

Saddam was never a threat to us in the 90's.

Clinton bombing was in retaliation for a terror attack of the USA embassy bombings. He bombed the wrong place, on bad information, or on pupose. Either way, it was a mistake.

The embassy bombing in Kenya and Tanzania happened on August 7, 1998. In retaliation for those attacks, Clinton launched Operation Infinite Reach on August 20th, 1998 on supposed terrorist targets in Afghanistan and Sudan, NOT Iraq. The bombing of Iraq did not happen until December 16, 1998, allegedly because Saddam Hussein had announced that he would no longer cooperate with the United Nations weapons inspectors. (Clinton also bombed Iraq in 1996, but that was clearly not in response for the 1998 embassy bombing either).

It was Bush I who did not go in and get Saddam when he had the chance. He made his reasons well known in his book.

You are trying to link two or three things together here that are not connected.

You claim Clinton didn't take care of Saddam, because he was a pussy and "didn't have the balls". Although Saddam did not attack our embassy. Then you claim that Clinton did not get Osama when he had the chance (I thought you claimed Saddam was the big threat in the 90s?). Then after 9-11, Osama attacked us, and Bush kicked ass by going in and doing the job "clinton didn't do" by attacking the man who had nothing to do with 9-11.

Brilliant.

 

Pay attention! He said Iraq was "a" threat. Is it too complicated a concept to grasp that Saddam can be a threat, and Al Qaeda can also be a threat, without the two being connected. Nor does there need to be a connection between a perceived threat and 9/11 for us to take that threat out.

And I'm tired of your "strawman alert" or "you're dumb" bullshit answers. If you're gonna say something, say something constructive, or shut up.


p.s.
Because I just know somebody will bring this up again, yes we all KNOW that no WMDs were found and that Bush acted upon bad intelligence.

[Rain]

Not to be an ass but when did SLC say that the bombing was in Iraq ?! He said it was in retaliation for the USA embassy attacks ... he was talking about the example given by sandman : "so he decided to bomb a drug factory in the middle of the night ".
It was Sandman who seemed to have trouble with events that took place in the 90s.

And how come nobody's discussing the article of the Los Angeles Times SLC posted ?!

[SLCPUNK]

The embassy bombing in Kenya and Tanzania happened on August 7, 1998. In retaliation for those attacks, Clinton launched Operation Infinite Reach on August 20th, 1998 on supposed terrorist targets in Afghanistan and Sudan, NOT Iraq.

Yea, and? I never said he attacked Iraq, it was a reference to the bombing in Sudan. The pharmaceutical wharehouse. Who is not paying attention POPTARD?


The bombing of Iraq did not happen until December 16, 1998, allegedly because Saddam Hussein had announced that he would no longer cooperate with the United Nations weapons inspectors. (Clinton also bombed Iraq in 1996, but that was clearly not in response for the 1998 embassy bombing either).

Yea, I know.

Pay attention! He said Iraq was "a" threat.

Yea, and? I said they were not.

Is it too complicated a concept to grasp that Saddam can be a threat, and Al Qaeda can also be a threat, without the two being connected.

Again the sound of a toilet flushing....

Saddam was NEVER  a threat to the USA..never. The poster was trying to blur the two together to make a point: that Clinton was somehow at fault. Logical fallacy. He either was trying to blur them to make a point, or needs to reread his history book.

 And I'm tired of your "strawman alert" or "you're dumb" bullshit answers. If you're gonna say something, say something constructive, or shut up.

Well you are going to be tired for a long time then.

Because I just know somebody will bring this up again, yes we all KNOW that no WMDs were found and that Bush acted upon bad intelligence.

Going to show that only a FOOL, sociopath, or idiot would support him still.

[SLCPUNK]

Not to be an ass but when did SLC said that the bombing was in Iraq ?! He said it was in retaliation for the USA embassy attacks ... he was talking about the example given by sandman : "so he decided to bomb a drug factory in the middle of the night ".
It was Sandman who seemed to have trouble with events that took place in the 90s.

And how come nobody's discussing the article of the Los Angeles Times SLC posted ?!

It's amazing isn't it?

These guys know shit about history, present it as some sort of fact, spin it, then get mad  when I tell them they present strawman arguments. 

They won't address the articles because it is easier to attack me personally, ain't that right POPTARD?

[pilferk]

I give a strawman alert when you turn something into a strawman argument.

 You proposed a hypothetical (strawman again) question, then asked why you thought that, and I answered with the question "because you are dumb?"

Guess I have to hold your hand and explain everything hmmm?

You answered "because you are dumb" because you know what I said was correct but at the same time you didn't want to admit it. If I was wrong, you would have simply disagreed with me.

And as for this alleged strawman, how did I misrepresent your point of view? Are you not being pedantic and acrimonious? You can't just pick and choose to argue the things you like and cry "strawman" whenever something you don't like pops up.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html

The below arguments could be added to the above link as a textbook example of a strawman.

"See, you just did it again with your fatalist view. And you're just being pedantic and bitter. It saddens me that people would be so pedantic and acrimonious that they would rather whine about the failure to find WMDs than to see the smile on the faces of free Iraqi people voting."

"You answered "because you are dumb" because you know what I said was correct but at the same time you didn't want to admit it. If I was wrong, you would have simply disagreed with me."


SLC's right,? Popmetal.? You're doing it a lot....

[pilferk]

On the original question:

First, it was WMD's (not there).? Then, it was connections to Al Qeada (not there).? And FINALLY it was "bringing democracy to the Iraqi people".? Was it a good idea for us to invade? Hell, no.? We invaded (yes, INVADED) a nations soveriegnty on nothing more than bad intelligence (which has been shown was questionable EVEN as Bush was making decisions based on it) and hearsay.  If any other country on the planet did what we did, we'd be leading the battle cry and pushing for U.N. Sanctions.

On the article above:

It's a good piece. The reporter did a good job of mining both sides of the political fence.? It's nice to see the Republican party actually starting to criticize and, perhaps, distance itself a bit from this administration.? It may be the only way they'll "save" the midterm elections next year, given the president's abysmal approval ratings.

I'm still hoping we get a Mccain vs Clinton ticket in '08 with both parties going in strong....

[jarmo]

Pay attention! He said Iraq was "a" threat.

What were they gonna do?

There are many other countries in that region who could be considered bigger threats. Just look at where the 9/11 people came from.


It just looks like the war on Iraq went from being about making sure Saddam has no WMDs (which USA believed he had) to being about terror and freedom since no WMDs were actually found. Conveniant change of a reason.


The last time USA went into Iraq, most people understood why. Iraq needed to be kicked out of Kuwait.

Now it's just a bunch of different reason because the first one doesn't make sense.





/jarmo

[Aero]

USA needs oil... that's why they want to "save" iraq people.

in about 10 years, the bad bad "chavez jr" will put in danger the world, and USA will rescue all of us (if venezuela still producing oil)

in about 20 years, usa will need drinkable water, they will find a potential enemy here in argentina, they will come to "save us" with few bombs, and take our antartic water reserve.

[Kitano]

USA needs oil... that's why they want to "save" iraq people.

in about 10 years, the bad bad "chavez jr" will put in danger the world, and USA will rescue all of us (if venezuela still producing oil)

in about 20 years, usa will need drinkable water, they will find a potential enemy here in argentina, they will come to "save us" with few bombs, and take our antartic water reserve.

Oh bullshit!!!!!!   If this war was about getting cheap oil then why am I paying $2.85 for a gallon of gas?  The war for oil arguement is dead, get over it.

[gilld1]

You are paying that for for oil now because Haliburton has to make a profit somehow.  The rich get richer, the poor take the bus and the middle class gets it in the ass again.

[Kitano]

You are paying that for for oil now because Haliburton has to make a profit somehow.? The rich get richer, the poor take the bus and the middle class gets it in the ass again.

The price of oil is going up because the chinese are buying alot more oil.  As demand increases and supply is reduced because of oil rigs being taken out in the gulf of mexico you get a spike in prices. 

I know you probably would like this to be some grand conspiracy by halliburton and cheney to screw everyone but the world is a little more complex.

[SLCPUNK]

USA needs oil... that's why they want to "save" iraq people.

in about 10 years, the bad bad "chavez jr" will put in danger the world, and USA will rescue all of us (if venezuela still producing oil)

in about 20 years, usa will need drinkable water, they will find a potential enemy here in argentina, they will come to "save us" with few bombs, and take our antartic water reserve.

Oh bullshit!!!!!!   If this war was about getting cheap oil then why am I paying $2.85 for a gallon of gas?  The war for oil arguement is dead, get over it.

Nobody ever said it was about oil NOW. It is about securing a USA position in the middle east and securing cheap oil for later.

In case you haven't read lately, we consume 4 barrels for every 1 we drill up. We are on the downward slope of the bell curve and have been for years.

Our entire society as we know it depends on OIL. Everything, not just gassing our cars up. We have no technology set in place, or even close, if the oil supply begins to end. Chenney and other big oil fat cats have made claim (as far back as 99) that it is getting harder to find more oil and it is something we are going to have to deal with.

You see the price of oil now? That is because of speculation of low supply, and then actual low supply. What do you think is going to happen to when the supply does run low? Total economic colapse as gas prices sky rocket. You don't think out government is aware of this? Secure long term oil NOW for later. We consume 1/4 of the worlds oil, we need oil to live. Don't tell me we aren't there for anything else but that. If we wanted to free a country we would have gone to Sudan years ago.

[POPmetal]

The embassy bombing in Kenya and Tanzania happened on August 7, 1998. In retaliation for those attacks, Clinton launched Operation Infinite Reach on August 20th, 1998 on supposed terrorist targets in Afghanistan and Sudan, NOT Iraq.

Yea, and? I never said he attacked Iraq, it was a reference to the bombing in Sudan. The pharmaceutical wharehouse. Who is not paying attention POPTARD?


The bombing of Iraq did not happen until December 16, 1998, allegedly because Saddam Hussein had announced that he would no longer cooperate with the United Nations weapons inspectors. (Clinton also bombed Iraq in 1996, but that was clearly not in response for the 1998 embassy bombing either).

Yea, I know.

Pay attention! He said Iraq was "a" threat.

Yea, and? I said they were not.

Is it too complicated a concept to grasp that Saddam can be a threat, and Al Qaeda can also be a threat, without the two being connected.

Again the sound of a toilet flushing....

Saddam was NEVER? a threat to the USA..never. The poster was trying to blur the two together to make a point: that Clinton was somehow at fault. Logical fallacy. He either was trying to blur them to make a point, or needs to reread his history book.

 And I'm tired of your "strawman alert" or "you're dumb" bullshit answers. If you're gonna say something, say something constructive, or shut up.

Well you are going to be tired for a long time then.

Because I just know somebody will bring this up again, yes we all KNOW that no WMDs were found and that Bush acted upon bad intelligence.

Going to show that only a FOOL, sociopath, or idiot would support him still.

Normally you reply with quotes. Why are you cutting and pasting now? Oh, right! Because if you didn't cut things away from the context of the conversation, 90% of what you said wouldn't fly.

it's the same type of bullshit if I were to do the following:

Yea, and? I never said he attacked Iraq, it was a reference to the bombing in Sudan. The pharmaceutical wharehouse. Who is not paying attention POPTARD?

Yea, well where did I say you said he attacked Iraq? Huh, SLCPUKE???


Now, on one hand, at least you're being more creative than simply deflecting things by saying "you're dumb" but on the other what does it say about you when you have to resort to such tactics.

And that last part of your post about how because Bush was given bad intelligence, only a fool, sociopath, or idiot would still support him ? ?That was just priceless coming from someone who admires Al Franken ?