The Iraq / war on terror thread

[shades]

Sandman, you and I are wasting our breath.

Sour grapes indeed, but its not from our side of the argument.

Whining and complaining about someone elses actions only puts their inaction under the microscope.

Of course sadaam was a threat to us and the entire free world.
And courting terrorists put him in a position that had to be dealt with

Of course he 'had' WMDs
And to say Zarquawi got in and out of Iraq without Sadaam knowing it is ludicrous.

Im not trying to rewrite history. As my lack of idea counterpart is using as his only way to make his argument.

Im with the school that errs on the side of caution when it comes to innocent Americans, women and children no less gasping for breath or hiding in fallout shelters is not a chance I choose to play with when I have at my disposal a way to guarantee otherwise.

[pilferk]

Sandman, you and I are wasting our breath.

Sour grapes indeed, but its not from our side of the argument.

Whining and complaining about someone elses actions only puts their inaction under the microscope.

Of course sadaam was a threat to us and the entire free world.
And courting terrorists put him in a position that had to be dealt with

Of course he 'had' WMDs
And to say Zarquawi got in and out of Iraq without Sadaam knowing it is ludicrous.

Im not trying to rewrite history. As my lack of idea counterpart is using as his only way to make his argument.

Im with the school that errs on the side of caution when it comes to innocent Americans, women and children no less gasping for breath or hiding in fallout shelters is not a chance I coose to play with when I have at my disposal a way to guarantee otherwise.

Every statement you made, above, has been disproven by actual historical events.? Every single one.

Not a direct threat to anyone outside his own country.
No connection to large scale "state sponsored" terrorists.
No WMD's left from Gulf War I.
 Al Qeada never had real contact with Saddam.
Saddam not only had no chemical or bio material to disperse in the US, but no method, even if he DID possess the material, with which to disperse it on US soil.

Those are facts.? Links are strewn throughout the threads showing each and every statement you just made to be complete fantasy.

As for your typical "no idea" conservative thing....at this point, considering the source....I can't say I'm real offended.? More fantasy....

I'll tell you what...I'll give you my ideas for the situation (which, FYI, are contained in earlier posts in other threads) when you can construct a decent, coherent point based in fact.? Deal?

[shades]

I'll tell you what...I'll give you my ideas for the situation (which, FYI, are contained in earlier posts in other threads) when you can construct a decent, coherent point based in fact.? Deal?

ok, I thought maybe the "who still thinks it was a good idea to invade Iraq" would be? good place to look for some sort of idea from you on what you would have done after 9/11.
But after reading thru 7+ pages of posts all I could find was more of your 'what we did wrong' banter that seems to be the theme of every post you make along with an occasional eluding to the fact that Clinton was your hero.
Which by the way is all too telling of whom Im trying to talk to.
and on that note, Im done.
Unless you have some idea of your own you really shouldnt bash someone who does.
 
 

[SLCPUNK]

That is all you can say to what he presented you?

Insults galore?

That's what I thought.

PP's abound.....

[sandman]

The resolution doesn't say "We think you have them, turn them over".? The resolution says "We want to make SURE that your claims you don't have them are true, and that you can't develop them in the future".? The wording is pretty specific.? It's talking about "clean up" of the Gulf War weapons (look at the resolution dates).

exactly, then what problem did you have with going in and making sure he didnt when he wouldnt disclose how and when he got rid of them..?
because we all know he 'did' have them?

you're making my argument for me otherwise.

You're rewriting history again.

He DID disclose and comply.? And by the deadline given. I posted the links.? UN inspectors were on the ground and he provided a 12000 page document with the information requested.?

And he didn't have 'em. None of the "expected" (by the US) WMD's materialized in the document because they didn't exist.

So, the US pointed at the fact that the documents he provided didn't show the WMD's they expected there to be (and didn't exist) and said he wasn't in compliance.? Catch-22, eh?? The UN, on the other hand, wasn't so sure, recognizing the Catch-22.? They felt, given Iraqs efforts to comply, that continued inspections would be the way to go.?

Some of the information provided was innacurate, but not a lot of it.? And the UN inspection teams looked at the document and said they could easily handle the leg work in tracking down the innacuracies, and that, given what they were, Iraq was, as they thought all along, not a threat.

he USED to have wmd's! that is a fact. therefore, the UN resolution wanted proof that he got rid of them. he never provided that proof.

here is an article from the USA Today. (i have no idea who this writer is and he could be a far right winger for all i know.) he argues that most of the world believed he still had WMDs.

again, if you have credible evidence of anyone stating that they were convinced he did not have wmd's, please provide. (sorry, i have no interest in searching for something i do not believe exists.)



Saddam was a grave threat
By Robert J. Lieber
We now hear the argument that since weapons of mass destruction (WMD) have not ? so far ? been found in Iraq, there has been a massive intelligence failure, and we never should have gone to war. But failure to find stockpiles does not mean the ultimate peril did not exist. Far more important were Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein's history, capability and intent, and the serious and long-term threat he posed to a vital region, to America's allies and to our national security.

First, Saddam had used WMD ? against Iran in the mid-1980s, and he later used them against his own people, killing more than 5,000 civilians in the Iraqi Kurdish town of Halabja in March 1988.

Second, Saddam had possessed WMD, as he acknowledged to the United Nations after his ouster from Kuwait in February 1991. Moreover, until at least the early 1990s, U.S., British, French, German and Israeli intelligence agencies had underestimated his biological and nuclear programs. And all of them ? along with the Clinton administration, the U.N. and both supporters and opponents of last year's war ? assumed Saddam still had substantial quantities of WMD.

Third, Saddam had maintained the capability to produce WMD. In 1991, the U.N. Special Commission (UNSCOM) discovered that Iraq possessed a workable design for an implosion-type nuclear weapon though not yet the necessary fissile material. If the material could be obtained elsewhere ? from Russia, Pakistan or North Korea ? Iraq was believed able to produce a bomb within a year. Iraq retained facilities as well as teams of scientists and engineers. And during the past year, the Iraq Survey Group, the U.S. inspection team, discovered a program to develop long-range missiles. The overall evidence led the team's head, David Kay, to say "Iraq was in clear violation" of a U.N. resolution demanding full accounting of WMD.

Fourth, Saddam had the intent. After the withdrawal of U.N. inspectors in 1998 and the erosion of international support for sanctions, Saddam counted on being free sooner or later to fully resume oil sales and rebuild his weapons. He continued to menace his neighbors, brutalize his people and cooperate with terrorist groups. He told Arab journalists in late 2002 that he was playing for time in the face of renewed American and coalition pressure.

In the aftermath of 9/11 and as murderously evident in Madrid, it is far better to act decisively against the most lethal threats rather than hope to deter them or to retaliate following a mass casualty attack. As British Prime Minister Tony Blair has said, 9/11 altered the balance of risk. Ultimately, the nature of Saddam's regime, his record of aggression and his capability and intent posed a major strategic threat. Despite the bitter and often partisan controversies that have erupted about the path to war, the case for the use of force remains compelling.

Robert J. Lieber is a professor of government and foreign affairs at Georgetown University. His forthcoming book is titled The American Era: A Guilt-Free Guide to Foreign Policy.

I said he used to have 'em.? And that they wanted proof he didn't anymore.? Thats precisely the point of my posts.? You just said it: The resolution wasn't about KNOWING he had them, it was about making sure he he didn't have them any longer.? You just said it yourself.? And he DID provide proof (after the resolution was passed, of course, and I'm sure you probably meant he didn't provide proof PRIOR to the resolution)...12000 pages and allowing UN inspectors access.? It took him forever, and he went kicking and screaming, but he did it...in 12000 pages of black and white and blue helmets in his country.

And your article, as posted, is an op/ed piece, not a declaration that any countries shared that opinion.

In addition, please don't rewrite what I've written, or misrepresent what I've said.? I didn't say that countries were convinced he did not have WMD's.? I said, by and large, they WEREN'T sure, one way or the other. Uncertainty, rather than certainty. They wanted proof.? That's what the resolution was all about...proving things one way or the other.? There was enough contradicting evidence that they were unwilling to act, categorically and violently.? Many of them had direct intel that contradicted the assertion that Iraq possessed WMD's.? That's the whole point.

Remember, the crux of OUR discussion goes back to me saying you're assigning certainty where there wasn't any. ANY, at that point.? For either side.? ? Hence, why the Resolution was adopted.

you stated that most nations did not believe saddam had weapons. i think that's an assumption. i don't think you can prove what most nations were thinking.

and i disagree with that assumption.

all i'm asking for is a link with a quote which would give some insights into the state of mind of any leader outside the U.S. back in late 2002 and early 2003.

also, i'm not assigning certainty. (i didn't know you liked to fact check posts on gnr boards.) IN MY OPINION, most nations THOUGHT he had wmd's.?

[SLCPUNK]

Still arguing if he had weapons......when we know now he did not. Trying to rewrite history to justify what? What are you justifying? Fucking up that part of the planet? Making asses out of America? Wasting human life? Wasting money? Losing international support down the road? What are you trying to justify at this point?

Ignoring that the country is spinning into civil war is one thing you are doing now.

Was it worth it then? To march over and create this?

Looks like the "cons" side has a lot more under it then anything else...

You guys say imaginary things like "protect our interests", that is rather ambiguous isn't it? So lacking thought it's mind numbing.....

[Charity Case]

It is far far too early to tell whether or not our efforts in Iraq are woth it.  Not sure how you pick now to make a decision on this when their new goverment isn't even in place yet.  It will be 40-50 years from now before we know the real impact of the war.  If Iraq is a free nation operating within the confines of their constitution and freedom and properity speads throughout the middle east, then it was more than successful.  If civil war is still going on (and I am not talking about the random terrorist attack), then it will have been a failed mission.

As for WMDs, as one poster stated, it would be very easy to hide some types of WMDs so that no one could ever find them (i.e. biological and chemical weapons).  But remember that the adminsitration used WMDs as a rallying cry to gain popular support for going into Iraq (and it worked in the States), but that the real legal arguement made before the UN was that Saddam had failed to comply with like 27 (not sure of the real number but it was high) previous resolutions and that, considering the changes in the amount of risk a our country was willing ti take on following 9/11, we couldn't let him get away with failing to comply with the latest resolution.  Of course the UN didn't see our point of view (for a number of reasons) and we said "hell, we'll do it with you".

It's foolish to look at the state of things this early and decide if it was successful.  Give it a few decades.  Rome wasn't built in a day and Iraq won't be either.

[sandman]

Still arguing if he had weapons......when we know now he did not. Trying to rewrite history to justify what? What are you justifying? Fucking up that part of the planet? Making asses out of America? Wasting human life? Wasting money? Losing international support down the road? What are you trying to justify at this point?

Ignoring that the country is spinning into civil war is one thing you are doing now.

Was it worth it then? To march over and create this?

Looks like the "cons" side has a lot more under it then anything else...

You guys say imaginary things like "protect our interests", that is rather ambiguous isn't it? So lacking thought it's mind numbing.....

actually, no. you should read the posts a little more carefully. we are not arguing if he had weapons. we are discussing what the beliefs were around the world in 2002 regarding whether saddam had weapons or not.

no rewriting history....but its hilarous how you all use the same catch phrases. (and accuse all conservatives of being brain-washed  )

[shades]

exactly, Its easy to say "we all know he didnt have WMD's" now.
But we didnt know 'then' and the consequences were too grave to risk.
It was used only for a rally cry to drum up support? maybe......
I believe the real resaon for going in was to make sure that 'IF' he had wmd's he didnt pass them on to a terrorist network that would in turn find a way to use them over here.
Mission accomplished.
Thats as plain and simple as I can put it.

And now that he's out of power it is our obligation to stay and help establish some sort of order while the Iraqi people try to desperately form a democratic government.
And there is a long road to tow, Iraqi is a divided nation. religion plays a huge part in their day to day lives,
and nothing more difficult than trying to please different religious agendas in a muslim state.
BUT
there are signs of hope and bashing the American effort at every turn is giving power to the evil that is bent on destroying any hope for peace.
But for some unknown reason there are still a few here that think something good can come out of pointing out hindsight.
accusing me of "rewriting history" Is the best they can come up with? please.........
In all due respect, you are entitled to your opinions, but is there anything positive that could come of them?
Dont answer that. Its rhetorical.

[gilld1]

With all do respect, how can we gloss over major lies from this administration?  What positives can be made through denial after denial?  What positives can be had through all this Bush doublespeak?  I hope you don't run your household like W does this country!

[SLCPUNK]

With all do respect, how can we gloss over major lies from this administration?  What positives can be made through denial after denial?  What positives can be had through all this Bush doublespeak?  I hope you don't run your household like W does this country!

This what I say. These guys look at their bills at claim they don't exist either? 


 For the first time in a while I get to sit back and watch someboy else(pilferk) set these guys straight. The example of their denial (which is amazing really) is right here on this thread. Like asking me what they said to "rewrite" history. It's already been pointed out to you, more than 3 times!

 LOL, you can accuse me of saying the same thing as pilferk, but I like what he said. He said you guys are rewriting history, and you are. You are liars of the worst kind and horrible for this country. In the long run (and short, look at our country now, it is in trouble) you people are ruining America.

With Bush's poll numbers at 32 percent for this war there is a ray of hope for this country.

I think pilferk excused himself from this thread because he realizes these people are beyond help they are truly PP's in every definition of the word. Unable to deal with reality, liars of the worst kind, and don't care if their lies kill other human beings. Horrible.

[SLCPUNK]

And where do we go from here wise ass?
Isnt that all that really matters, in reality.



"my side" is trying to offer answers....

What answers?

Denying the truth? Are you serious? You aren't offering up anything but lies, lies, and more lies. People point you to the facts, and you deny them, then ask them to be pointed to you again.

I'm curious -- why is it so difficult for you to grasp the difference between the fine men and women in uniform carrying arms to defend their country and some ignorant asshole in the White House who chose to risk their lives in a war of aggression against a sniveling little weakling nation that wasn't capable or interested in causing us harm?

[Charity Case]

I'm curious -- why is it so difficult for you to grasp the difference between the fine men and women in uniform carrying arms to defend their country and some ignorant asshole in the White House who chose to risk their lives in a war of aggression against a sniveling little weakling nation that wasn't capable or interested in causing us harm?

Don't kid yourself, they were very interested in causing us harm.  Turns out they were not capable at the time, but they were certainly interested.

[SLCPUNK]

I'm curious -- why is it so difficult for you to grasp the difference between the fine men and women in uniform carrying arms to defend their country and some ignorant asshole in the White House who chose to risk their lives in a war of aggression against a sniveling little weakling nation that wasn't capable or interested in causing us harm?

Don't kid yourself, they were very interested in causing us harm.  Turns out they were not capable at the time, but they were certainly interested.

No threat was made, period.

"interested" is a reason to go to war in your brilliant opinion?

[SLCPUNK]

Failures=Accomplishments
War=Peace
Lies=Truth
Death=Life

What other Orwellian scenarios have you to offer?

[jarmo]

Don't kid yourself, they were very interested in causing us harm.? Turns out they were not capable at the time, but they were certainly interested.

There were other countries who were/are bigger threats.



The Soviet Union used to want to harm you. Remember that time?




/jarmo

[SLCPUNK]

If we keep this up (worldwide conquests and waging wars on fake enemies) we will be attacked, financially.

Many countries are holding our debt. If they wanted to "attack" they could dump the debt, or simply quit buying it.

See what happens then.

[pilferk]

you stated that most nations did not believe saddam had weapons. i think that's an assumption. i don't think you can prove what most nations were thinking.

and i disagree with that assumption.

all i'm asking for is a link with a quote which would give some insights into the state of mind of any leader outside the U.S. back in late 2002 and early 2003.

also, i'm not assigning certainty. (i didn't know you liked to fact check posts on gnr boards.) IN MY OPINION, most nations THOUGHT he had wmd's.?

It's bad when you try to rewrite MY post history, too:

Here's what I've said:

"You guys keep saying this.? Repeating it isn't going to make it true. MOST of the worlds intelligence agencies did NOT think Iraq had WMD's, nor did they think that Iraq was a threat to the US.? Quite the contrary. There was NO CONCENSUS.? Even our OWN INTELLIGENCE, when summed in total, was not conclusive...

What intelligence existed was inconclusive, and much of it contradictory."

That in response to your statement that "Most countries thought Iraq had WMD".  It was YOU making the assumption.  I was pointing out there was no such consensus.

I did so again in another post, in response to you.

Again, you're "upping" the credibility of the information.

What other countries reportedly thought was that there was a possibility that WMD's existed in Iraq, but there was no conclusive evidence that they did.? Russia, Spain, and even Isreal had direct intelligence that was conflicting or proven to lack good credibility.? A good portion of the worlds intelligence community said the same thing:? We've heard the buzz, but have no concrete intel that would suggest it's actually true, and actually have equally credibly intel that says it's NOT true.? And, when we were so vehmenently sure of ourselves...they all asked to see the intel we had.? We refused (and now, at least, we know why).? In retrospect, it looks as if WE had the same intel THEY did, but decided to be a bit less restrained and lots more "gung ho", throwing caution to the wind, as it were.

You're assigning certainty when history says there wasn't any.

Very clear, black and white.?

Again, don't misrepresent what I've said.? Or take one line out of context.? The intent is pretty obvious.

I haven't, FYI, "bowed out" of the thread.? I AM, however, battling a nasty sinus infection coupled with a bitch of a headache.

[pilferk]

exactly, Its easy to say "we all know he didnt have WMD's" now.
But we didnt know 'then' and the consequences were too grave to risk.
It was used only for a rally cry to drum up support? maybe......
I believe the real resaon for going in was to make sure that 'IF' he had wmd's he didnt pass them on to a terrorist network that would in turn find a way to use them over here.
Mission accomplished.
Thats as plain and simple as I can put it.

And now that he's out of power it is our obligation to stay and help establish some sort of order while the Iraqi people try to desperately form a democratic government.
And there is a long road to tow, Iraqi is a divided nation. religion plays a huge part in their day to day lives,
and nothing more difficult than trying to please different religious agendas in a muslim state.
BUT
there are signs of hope and bashing the American effort at every turn is giving power to the evil that is bent on destroying any hope for peace.
But for some unknown reason there are still a few here that think something good can come out of pointing out hindsight.
accusing me of "rewriting history" Is the best they can come up with? please.........
In all due respect, you are entitled to your opinions, but is there anything positive that could come of them?
Dont answer that. Its rhetorical.

 A few?? How is almost 70% "a few"?

I think it's time for those BACKING the war to acknowledge they are now FIRMLY in the minority.

As for the rest....I'm too sick (and sick and tired) to shred through another of these posts.

So, instead, I'll fall back on the time honored debate standard:

Prove it.

Prove it all.

Every single line.

Or call it opinion and move on.

PS: I thought you said you were "done"?

[pilferk]

I'll tell you what...I'll give you my ideas for the situation (which, FYI, are contained in earlier posts in other threads) when you can construct a decent, coherent point based in fact.? Deal?

ok, I thought maybe the "who still thinks it was a good idea to invade Iraq" would be? good place to look for some sort of idea from you on what you would have done after 9/11.
But after reading thru 7+ pages of posts all I could find was more of your 'what we did wrong' banter that seems to be the theme of every post you make along with an occasional eluding to the fact that Clinton was your hero.
Which by the way is all too telling of whom Im trying to talk to.
and on that note, Im done.
Unless you have some idea of your own you really shouldnt bash someone who does.
 
 

Clinton was not my hero.? I voted for him exactly 1 time....against GW's father (and no, I didn't vote for Dole, either).? I'm a registered independant, no matter how you'd like to pigeonhole me, with a history of voting BOTH sides of the ticket (as well as Independant parties).? If you read the posts more closely, you? might see that.

Second, you might want to check the title of the thread again.? It's not the "Was it a good idea to invade Iraq" thread....

Thirdly, I have 2 or 3 posts, scattered throughout the political threads (past and present) that have my ideas on what to do...not that they really matter.? I'm not the one steering the ship....nor will I ever be.? All I can do is place faith in the captain of the ship.....and complain when he does a crappy job steering.

But I'm not going to steer you to those posts.? Go ahead and look for yourself.? I've done so much research for you, of late, I should be getting paid for it.

I'm going back to my vaporizer and kleenex now.? Have fun.