Iraq in Retrospect

rccar328 · January 30, 2004

In that we can't just assume that eventually a country is going to be a threat and take them out early, because in the end they may decide to throw off their evil ways and join us in peace and harmony.

And if you truly believe that this would have happened with Saddam Hussein or will happen with hard-line Middle-Eastern terrorists, you're deluding yourself.

Could this happen? Yeah...there's a very small chance that it could.

Can we afford to take that chance? That is the real question.

For instance, if I see a scary looking guy with a gun coming towards me, I'm gonna call the cops.

Do I know if this guy's looking to shoot me? No.

Am I willing to wait until the barrel of his gun is in my ear? No.

I am going to take pre-emptive action to try to ensure that I don't get my brains blown out.

This is what happened with Iraq, only the US's action wasn't pre-emptive; we had an agreement with the scary looking guy (Saddam) saying that he wouldn't have a gun (WMD, WMD programs, LRMs). He violated that agreement, we took him out.

What this has to do with voting age...I don't know, but I just had to say something.

And these little conversations do tend to evolve, no matter how hard we try to stay on topic.

SkinWalker · January 31, 2004

Originally posted by rccar328
And if you truly believe that this would have happened with Saddam Hussein or will happen with hard-line Middle-Eastern terrorists, you're deluding yourself.

He didn't say individual or movement, he said country. There's a bit of evidence that suggests that Iraq was destabilized to the point that Hussein's hold on the people might have collapsed. This comes from conversations that David Kay had with Tariq Aziz as he stated in an interview with Ted Koppel just this week.

As to terrorists, they don't have countries, borders or governments. So it doesn't apply. Preemptively striking a nation would only serve to interrupt support for terrorists.

ET Warrior · January 31, 2004

Originally posted by rccar328
This is what happened with Iraq, only the US's action wasn't pre-emptive; we had an agreement with the scary looking guy (Saddam) saying that he wouldn't have a gun (WMD, WMD programs, LRMs). He violated that agreement, we took him out.

How can you possibly say it wasn't pre-emptive? They were not a threat to us, nor had they made any threats against us. There was no evidence of military action towards the US from Iraq. They apparently didn't have WMDs, and ESPECIALLY didn't have any way to get them to the US.

I'm not sure what you'd call attacking a country that hadn't done anything to us, but I'd say pre-emptive is being nice, because I really doubt that Iraq EVER would have been a threat to us.

abcd1234 · January 31, 2004

Originally posted by ET Warrior
How can you possibly say it wasn't pre-emptive? They were not a threat to us, nor had they made any threats against us. There was no evidence of military action towards the US from Iraq. They apparently didn't have WMDs, and ESPECIALLY didn't have any way to get them to the US.

I'm not sure what you'd call attacking a country that hadn't done anything to us, but I'd say pre-emptive is being nice, because I really doubt that Iraq EVER would have been a threat to us.

I agree completely with all of this. I agree that the United States can't be policing the world and say that the reason they are attacking another country is because they may eventually become a threat to us.

rccar328 · January 31, 2004

How can you possibly say it wasn't pre-emptive? They were not a threat to us, nor had they made any threats against us. There was no evidence of military action towards the US from Iraq. They apparently didn't have WMDs, and ESPECIALLY didn't have any way to get them to the US.

This is getting frustrating. I will put this in the absolute simplest terms I can, so maybe you will understand what I'm saying:

WE

HAD

A

CEASE-FIRE

AGREEMENT

WHICH

IRAQ

VIOLATED

It was not pre-emptive because our action in Iraq is a continuance of the Persian Gulf War. Saddam violated the terms of the cease-fire, so the US military moved in to take him out.

SkinWalker · January 31, 2004

Originally posted by rccar328
This is getting frustrating. I will put this in the absolute simplest terms I can, so maybe you will understand what I'm saying: WE HAD A CEASE-FIRE AGREEMENT WHICH IRAQ VIOLATED.

It was not pre-emptive because our action in Iraq is a continuance of the Persian Gulf War. Saddam violated the terms of the cease-fire, so the US military moved in to take him out.

Theatrics deleted

That's total bull. The U.S. didn't wage war on Iraq the first time, a coalition of nations held Iraq accountable.

Iraq's violations of the cease fire agreement were being addressed at the time that Bush ordered a unilateral (no coalition this time), preemptive strike on Iraq.

The inspectors that re-entered Iraq (after being kicked out by the UN in 1998) were uncovering information. They were doing their job.

Bush ordered the invasion of Iraq without consent or agreement from the body whose resolutions were supposedly being ignored.

The invasion of Iraq was about taking advantage of public support in order to further the agenda already established by the Project for a New American Century. The members of which are, mostly, now members of the Bush administration.

It definately was not a continuation of Desert Storm.

rccar328 · January 31, 2004

Some critics have said our duties in Iraq must be internationalized. This particular criticism is hard to explain to our partners in Britain, Australia, Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, Thailand, Italy, Spain, Poland, Denmark, Hungary, Bulgaria, Ukraine, Romania, the Netherlands, Norway, El Salvador, and the 17 other countries that have committed troops to Iraq. As we debate at home, we must never ignore the vital contributions of our international partners, or dismiss their sacrifices.

Just because Bush's coalition didn't have the official UN support doesn't mean it's not a coalition. "International support" is not synonymous with "UN sanction," and it shouldn't be. The UN has become an impotent, incompetent organization:

This ABC News report talks about a document discovered in the Iraqi Oil Ministry which details how Saddam was paying people to oppose the war, among them France, Russia, and a member of British Parliament. What's more, according to the article, Saddam was using the UN's own oil-for-food program to hide the payoffs!

To state that the United States took unilateral, pre-emptive action in Iraq is to ignore the facts of the cease-fire, the UN resolutions, the corruption of the UN, and the many nations that supported our troops in the action.

The Project for a New American Century letter clearly states that we were dependant on our UN allies in order to ensure that Saddam was not building & stockpiling weapons of mass destruction. I believe that it is clear now that our trust in those allies was unfounded, especially in light ofthis recently discovered corruption.

Simply ignoring the advice of all of our allies and basically giving them the finger and telling them where they can shove it does not seem like something an advanced super-power should do.

But who gave whom the finger? If members of the security council opposed the war because they were being paid to do so, we should be within our rights to move on our own (even though we did get a coalition of nations).

SkinWalker · February 1, 2004

Originally posted by rccar328
"International support" is not synonymous with "UN sanction," and it shouldn't be.

This is true. But it was UN Resolutions and Mandates that was used as a reason, therefore the UN's position should have been the deciding factor.

Originally posted by rccar328
The UN has become an impotent, incompetent organization:

This is true also. But it is primarily because the most influential member of the UN refuses to participate in the UN business when it suits it. If one is going to advocate being a "world cop" and commiting troops to "police the world," then one must consider that simply ignoring the United Nations will have a detrimental effect. It will render them useless and ineffectual.

Originally posted by rccar328
This ABC News report talks about a document discovered in the Iraqi Oil Ministry which details how Saddam was paying people to oppose the war, among them France, Russia, and a member of British Parliament.

I don't doubt this for a minute. That is something Iraq was certain to try. But if you think that the Bush administration didn't have some economic designs on the outcome of Iraq, then you, my friend, are naive. Iraq's oil fields are second only to Saudi Arabia and there are some geologists who think that they may be larger.

Originally posted by rccar328
To state that the United States took unilateral, pre-emptive action in Iraq is to ignore the facts of the cease-fire, the UN resolutions, the corruption of the UN,

There is significant evidence to suggest that the corruption of the United States at winning votes in the UN Security Council is what should be looked at, not UN corruption. I point you to the attempted coercion of Mexico and others by US representatives just prior to the invasion.

The invasion was preemptive. Bush administration officials (including Bush himself) have even stated as much.

The invasion was wrong. The UN didn't approve of it.

The war was unconstitutional. The U.S. Congress voted only to allow the President to decide. The Constitiution explicitly states Congress will declare wars.

The invasion came at the wrong time. We should have been focused on responding to Al-Qaeda and bringing Bin Laden to justice. Moreover, the UN Inspection Team was getting results.

The Invasion was unnecessary. The UN Inspection Team that was kicked out by the UN in 1998 did much of the work. The team that went in just prior to the war was getting results. No evidence of WMDs existed. Evidence existed that U.S. claims, such as stockpiles of VX and liquid anthrax, were inconsequential based on shelf life of the substances.

Originally posted by rccar328
The Project for a New American Century letter clearly states that we were dependant on our UN allies in order to ensure that Saddam was not building & stockpiling weapons of mass destruction.

Which is why the Inspection Teams returned. And got results. But as it turns out, the "stockpiling weapons" argument has been a fallacy.

Originally posted by rccar328
If members of the security council opposed the war because they were being paid to do so, we should be within our rights to move on our own (even though we did get a coalition of nations).

And interestingly enough, many of the names on that list that was supposedly found in Baghdad includes individuals from nations of this supposed coalition. In all likelihood, the "document" is spurious at best. But if there was a payoff and corruption, that doesn't mean the UN Security Council was corrupt. The corruption that did exist, and was well documented, included US officials attempting to coerce foreign delegates to the Security Council.

This is from Linza (2003).
In the past three weeks, U.S. and Mexican officials said, on condition of anonymity, that Undersecretary of State Marc Grossman and Kim Holmes, the assistant secretary of state for international organizations visited Mexico City.

Mexican diplomats described the visits as hostile in tone and complained that Washington was demonstrating little concern for the constraints of the Mexican government whose people are overwhelmingly opposed to a war with Iraq.

"They actually told us: 'any country that doesn't go along with us will be paying a very heavy price,"' one Mexican diplomat said.

Yeah. The UN Security Council process was corrupted allright. Whether or not Iraq did or didn't, tried or was successful, it's clear that the United States did and was successful.

The good name of our nation has been tarnished throughout the world community. It's time to fire George W. Bush and put someone there that cares more about our nation and less about his corporate pals.

Linzer, Dafna (2003). U.S. Officials Push for Iraq Votes. Associated Press Online. International News, Februrary 24.

rccar328 · February 2, 2004

The Senate voted overwhelmingly early this morning to authorize President Bush to use force against Iraq, joining with the House in giving him a broad mandate to act against Saddam Hussein.

This is from a NY Times article dated October 11, 2002.

The U.S. Congress voted only to allow the President to decide. The Constitiution explicitly states Congress will declare wars.

Voted to allow the President to decide what?? Congress authorized the President to use of force in Iraq. The idea that the President entered into a military action without the authorization of Congress is a myth perpetrated by Democratic Congressmen with presidential aspirations - they are not based on the facts.

But it was UN Resolutions and Mandates that was used as a reason, therefore the UN's position should have been the deciding factor.

Why? The UN showed its lack of resolve over many years and many unenforced resolutions. Why should we subject our soverignty to an organization that refuses to act on its own words? The simple presence of the UN resolutions shows us that the UN considered Iraq to be a threat. The fact that the UN failed to enforce its resolutions shows its incompetence. You agree that the UN is incompetent, yet you believe that the US should put the word of this incompetent organization before its own security.

if you think that the Bush administration didn't have some economic designs on the outcome of Iraq, then you, my friend, are naive.

This is the "no war for oil" argument, right? Just scream HALLIBURTON and get it over with.

Personally, I believe that we should use some of Iraq's oil revenue to pay for the war - after all, we did free the people of Iraq from a brutal dictator. However, I am conflicted on this - I also believe the Iraqis should be able to keep their assets to build up their own nation. I do understand were economic reasons for going to war, but I do not believe that Bush sat down with his oil buddies and said, "Let's go take their oil." If you believe that, then it is you who is naive.

the UN Inspection Team was getting results.

This is the continuation of the "let inspections work" argument from before the war. If inspections were going to work, they would've worked long before George W. Bush was in office. US forces have found mobile weapons labs in Iraq. These people were very efficient at hiding their weapons programs. And David Kay did not say that Iraq definitely had no WMD - he said they may have been moved into Syria.

The UN Security Council process was corrupted allright. Whether or not Iraq did or didn't, tried or was successful, it's clear that the United States did and was successful.

What you've described is strong language, possible coercion, but not corruption. The US was not paying for votes, they were using very strong diplomatic language to get nations on our side. I believe that the veiled threat described in your article should not have been made, but to call it corruption is to misuse the word. The US was not paying for security council votes. The US was not paying for vocal support of the war. The idea that the US should submit its will and the security of its people to the UN security council, which is obviously a corrupt and incompetent body, is ludicrous.

What's more, the War on Terror brought about a new policy - you're either with us or against us. We are waging a war against terrorism - a noble cause. We are asking for, if not military support, then at least diplomatic support for this cause. Any nation not willing to support the elimination of terrorists is suspect of a hidden motive.

-I will now pause while you scream "SALEM WITCH TRIALS" at me.

We now see the truth in this. France and Russia denounced the war. Why? Because Iraq was paying them to do so - their hidden motive was money.

Terrorism is a heinous crime. The idea that there is a nation in the world who would not support the elimination of terrorists implies that they are supporting terrorists or have something to gain from terrorism.

Saddam was supporting terrorism. We know this. By taking him out, we not only removed a brutal dictator, but removed a support mechanism for terrorists across the world.

The invasion came at the wrong time. We should have been focused on responding to Al-Qaeda and bringing Bin Laden to justice.

You are also naive if you believe that our military forces cannot do two things at once. We still had troops in Afghanistan when our troops went into Iraq. We still have troops in Afghanistan today.

Which is why the Inspection Teams returned. And got results. But as it turns out, the "stockpiling weapons" argument has been a fallacy.

But the argument was not only about weapons stockpiles, which we suspected but did not know for sure were there. It was also about the development of weapons, which we know he was doing. (I had a Reuters article to verify this, but it was from last May and was removed from their site.)

If you believe that the intellegence failures prior to the Iraq war are Bush's fault, you are even more naive. After the Cold War ended, Congress voted to decrease funding to our intelligence agencies, and we are seeing the results of those cuts now. To blame these failures on Bush is to give in to a lie - politicians on both sides of the isle, including some of the President's most vocal opposition said prior to the war that they believed Iraq had weapons stockpiles. As soon as a Republican was in office, though, they mysteriously forgot all about their prior knowledge in an effort to gain power back.

SkinWalker · February 3, 2004

quote:
The Senate voted overwhelmingly early this morning to authorize President Bush to use force against Iraq, joining with the House in giving him a broad mandate to act against Saddam Hussein.

This is from a NY Times article dated October 11, 2002.

quote:

The U.S. Congress voted only to allow the President to decide. The Constitiution (sic) explicitly states Congress will declare wars.

Voted to allow the President to decide what?? Congress authorized the President to use of force in Iraq. The idea that the President entered into a military action without the authorization of Congress is a myth perpetrated by Democratic Congressmen with presidential aspirations - they are not based on the facts.

You are correct. That is a fallacy (or myth as you put it). My contention isn't that. My contention is that Congress failed to live up to it's constitutional requirement to be the one to declare war. Instead, they authorized the President to do it. Declarations of war can be formal, and in writing, but one can declare war simply by invading as well. This isn't a Republican failing, but an American one. Both parties were complicit in the failure. But, ultimately, it was the President, through a bully pulpit, that violated the Constitution.

quote:
But it was UN Resolutions and Mandates that were used as a reason; therefore the UN's position should have been the deciding factor.

Why? The UN showed its lack of resolve over many years and many unenforced resolutions. Why should we subject our soverignty to an organization that refuses to act on its own words?

Because we demand that other nations do so. Iraq for instance. But then, that creates the circular argument: Iraq defied UN Resolution(s), therefore it should be invaded. The United States need not adhere to UN decisions because Iraq needs invading.

The simple presence of the UN resolutions shows us that the UN considered Iraq to be a threat. The fact that the UN failed to enforce its resolutions shows its incompetence. You agree that the UN is incompetent, yet you believe that the US should put the word of this incompetent organization before its own security.

Actually, I believe the UN is rendered incompetent by the refusal of major powers to acknowledge the UN. If the United States supported United Nations policy, the body would have better effect. The problem of the United Nations is a grander issue than simply stating you disagree with their policy. The United Nations relies upon member states to provide enforcement and is expectedly ineffective in incursion. It's best effect, as shown by history, is after stability has been provided to a state. In it's other roles, such as Human Rights monitoring, the UN's work is unparalleled. But the United Nations had inspections teams on the ground, and they were getting results, until the United States invaded a sovereign country.

quote:
if you think that the Bush administration didn't have some economic designs on the outcome of Iraq, then you, my friend, are naive.

This is the "no war for oil" argument, right? Just scream HALLIBURTON and get it over with.

Halliburton? Halliburton is but a drop in the bucket. The real threat to the entire oil industry is that OPEC will switch from the dollar to the euro as the denomination of choice for oil trading (Yarjani,, 2002). OPEC's position is to use the euro instead of the dollar if it should challenge it in strength. Should Iraq's oil production be increased in a year or two to it's full, or near full, potential, it would "dismantle OPEC's price controls (Clark, 2003)." OPEC's cap on barrels per day (2 million?) could be broke, the price of oil would drop. Hell, it would plummet. It's easy to see the benefit to the US oil industry as well as the US economy, which is a petroleum economy as demonstrated during the OPEC Oil Embargo of the early 1970's. The dollar would remain the currency for trade.

but I do not believe that Bush sat down with his oil buddies and said, "Let's go take their oil." If you believe that, then it is you who is naive.

Of course I don't believe that. There is nothing to gain by "taking" the oil. Even if the US simply confiscated all of Iraq’s oil and sold it, it would only add about 20 billion dollars to the US treasury each year. In addition, the US would have to pay for maintenance and investment in the fields, and provide security. No, the real advantage is the effect on OPEC. If Iraq busts its quota, then who in OPEC will give up 5 million barrels of production? No one could afford to, and OPEC could actually die.

US forces have found mobile weapons labs in Iraq.

You've not been keeping up. While it was possible for weapons to have been produced in these "labs," there was more evidence to suggest that they were for hydrogen production (or other, non-weapons, uses) for balloons. These types of balloons are necessary for various units of the military that deal with meteorological data. We use the same type of technology in almost the same way in our own military.

These people were very efficient at hiding their weapons programs.

That, or they were very proficient at destroying them.

And David Kay did not say that Iraq definitely had no WMD - he said they may have been moved into Syria.

And they "may" have been stolen by aliens from space. There is an equal amount of evidence to support either contention. But what I heard David Kay state was the there "probably" was no WMD in Iraq at the time of the invasion. But you must concede that the specific WMD threats mentioned, VRX and liquid anthrax, were fallacies. These types of agents do not have the shelf-lives needed for "hiding," even under the best conditions.

What you've described is strong language, possible coercion, but not corruption. The US was not paying for votes, they were using very strong diplomatic language to get nations on our side.

Bull. What the US diplomats was saying is that 'if you vote our way, economic sanctions will not be forthcoming/economic rewards will be forthcoming for your nation.' What other leverage do you think their words held? Of course, it's possible that there was a threat of refusing to acknowledge Cinco de Mayo in the U.S. if they didn't comply….

What's more, the War on Terror brought about a new policy - you're either with us or against us.

BullJive. That's a fallacy all by itself. Of the most dangerous kind. That kind of unthinking diplomacy is reason enough to fire Bush if not impeach him. To bring up War on Terror in an argument about the Iraqi Invasion is belittling to every single person who perished at the World Trade Centers. Bush, by doing the same, has basically stated that their lives were valuable only in the advancement of the neo-conservative agenda and if we get Bin Laden……..

We are waging a war against terrorism - a noble cause.

Absolute BullJive. Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism against the United States. To say so is wrong. There is absolutely no evidence, nor was there ever, that Hussein supported Al-Qaeda in any meaningful way. We discussed this already. If you know evidence that is real, cite it and I'll eat crow.

We are asking for, if not military support, then at least diplomatic support for this cause. Any nation not willing to support the elimination of terrorists is suspect of a hidden motive.

There has not been any nation that wasn't already aligned against the West (N. Korea, Iran, etc.) that refused to help in the so-called Global War on Terrorism. What they refused to support was the invasion of a sovereign nation.

-I will now pause while you scream "SALEM WITCH TRIALS" at me.

I don't see how that relates, really.

We now see the truth in this. France and Russia denounced the war. Why? Because Iraq was paying them to do so - their hidden motive was money.

That has yet to be proven. And if some officials within these nations are proven corrupt, that does not effectively demonstrate the level of influence that these officials had in the decisions of the remainder of the governing bodies of the nations in question. More fallacy.

Terrorism is a heinous crime. The idea that there is a nation in the world who would not support the elimination of terrorists implies that they are supporting terrorists or have something to gain from terrorism.

We weren't originally discussing terrorism; we were discussing Iraq and the illegal war on such. But if you are still clinging to the "Hussein/Al-Qaeda" connection I can see your mistake here.

Saddam was supporting terrorism. We know this.

Wrong. You believe this. Saddam supported the Palestinian movement, particularly by providing death benefits to "suicide bombers." This can easily be defined as terrorism, however, it must be acknowledged that much of the Arab world is in support of the Palestinian movement in exactly the same way, particularly Saudi Arabia. It doesn't seem logical that we would invade a country for this reason.

By taking him out, we not only removed a brutal dictator, but removed a support mechanism for terrorists across the world.

More fallacy, non-sequitur to be exact. Sure, we removed a brutal dictator. So what about Robert Mugabe, the guy who runs the Ukraine, Kuchma? What about Lukashenko who runs Belarus? What about Fidel Castro, right in our own back yard? We could go on, and on….. There are many other "brutal dictators" in the world that are offering support to Al-Qaeda as well as other terrorists that are aligned against the West, particularly in Indo-China.

You are also naive if you believe that our military forces cannot do two things at once. We still had troops in Afghanistan when our troops went into Iraq. We still have troops in Afghanistan today.

I assure you, I'm far more qualified to tell you what the capabilities of your military is than you. Yes. We can do "two things at once." But it is apparent that we cannot do it effectively. Moreover, if the neo-conservatives and the unfortunate followers of the same weren't bent by hatred to act for the sake of acting, then perhaps we would have Bin Laden in custody or at least a sample of his DNA for verification of the body. This administration fouled up. The American people will show their dissatisfaction in November.

It was also about the development of weapons, which we know he was doing. (I had a Reuters article to verify this, but it was from last May and was removed from their site.)

No. We don't "know" Iraq was developing weapons. We "assumed" it. There were other, more cost-effective (in money and lives) ways to ensure this besides a full invasion of a sovereign nation.

If you believe that the intellegence failures prior to the Iraq war are Bush's fault, you are even more naive. After the Cold War ended, Congress voted to decrease funding to our intelligence agencies, and we are seeing the results of those cuts now.

And rightly so. The expenditure on countering the threat of the USSR was far more than you realize. Moreover, the assets placed throughout the world were significant. The decrease in defense funding was to match the decrease in need for global, strategic assets, particularly long-range weaponry, nuclear weapons and their maintenance and storage, etc. I'm very familiar with this and the global influence our military (and government) once had. But the world is a different place. The threat is also different. No longer are these same assets needed and the counter-terrorist needs can be far more cost effective. Particularly without the costly and wasteful Strategic Defense Initiative that made sense when there were untold ICBMS pointed at us.

More fallacy.

To blame these failures on Bush is to give in to a lie - politicians on both sides of the isle, including some of the President's most vocal opposition said prior to the war that they believed Iraq had weapons stockpiles.

Bush was the President in charge of the dissemination of information. If his staff were too incompetent to interpret the intel correctly, then he deserves the boot.

I honestly could care less if the President of the United States is Republican or Democrat. Whichever party holds that position should be competent. They should have the best interests of the United States at heart and not see to it that the corporate interests take precedent over the people. I've traveled abroad on many occasions, and I prefer to do it when the United States has invested good social and political capital throughout the world. Most countries of the world now see our government as a band of thugs and bullies, bent on taking over the economies of lesser nations. For a President to mishandle, misuse, and basically blunder his way through the world as Bush has done is treasonous. He's had his chance. Come November, the people of this nation are taking it back. A regime change is in order.

Sources:

Yarjani, Javad (2002). The Choice of Currency for the Denomination of the Oil Bill. Speech made at the convention: The International Role of the Euro (Invited by the Spanish Minister

of Economic Affairs during Spain’s Presidency of the EU). April 14, Oviedo, Spain.

Clark, William (January 2003) 'The Real Reasons for the Upcoming War With Iraq: A Macroeconomic and Geostrategic Analysis of the Unspoken Truth'. Independent Media Center Essay.

Removed censor stars rccar was right... profanity is bad

rccar328 · February 4, 2004

My contention is that Congress failed to live up to it's constitutional requirement to be the one to declare war. Instead, they authorized the President to do it. Declarations of war can be formal, and in writing, but one can declare war simply by invading as well. This isn't a Republican failing, but an American one. Both parties were complicit in the failure.

I agree. Our nation has been very squeamish about declaring war (Korea, Vietnam, etc.). However, to lay this at Bush's feet is to be dishonest. The President identified a threat (according to the intelligence information he was given), and did what he had to to eliminatie that threat.

While it was possible for weapons to have been produced in these "labs," there was more evidence to suggest that they were for hydrogen production (or other, non-weapons, uses) for balloons.

While this is possible, this argument brings up more questions than answers. Why would they hide a hydrogen production facility in a trailer? I read in a report (I do not remember where) that said that these facilities were extremely inneficient due to their small size and mobile nature. What would it profit them to produce small amounts of hydrogen at great cost for weather balloons? I see no reason for anyone to hide the production of a simple gas used for weather balloons. While this is a possibility, it is extremely unlikely.

That, or they were very proficient at destroying them [WMD].

If Iraq destroyed their WMD, why did they not provide documentation to prove it? We had no way of knowing whether their WMD were destroyed, moved out of the country, or present in Iraq because Iraq was not forthcoming with proof. Before our troops moved in, Bush placed the burden of proof on Iraq’s shoulders – if they had destroyed the weapons, all they had to do was to prove it.

To bring up War on Terror in an argument about the Iraqi Invasion is belittling to every single person who perished at the World Trade Centers.

Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism against the United States. To say so is wrong. There is absolutely no evidence, nor was there ever, that Hussein supported Al-Qaeda in any meaningful way.

Well, I apologize for letting common sense get the better of me. I have this wierd tendency to take two facts, put them together, and come to an obvious conclusion, even though the 'experts' have not explicitly stated that it was true.

First off, the war in Iraq is part of the war on terror, whether you're willing to admit/believe it or not.

To arbitrarily assume that the Hussein regime had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with terrorism against the US is clear short-sightedness and intellectual dishonesty. Our troops found a suspected Al-Qaida camp IN IRAQ during the invasion. These are the people who destroyed the World Trade Centers. Hussein was a scumbag with an obvious hatred toward the US. We know that Hussein was supporting Palestenian terrorists & giving money to the families of suicide bombers. If he would so overtly support these terrorists, what would keep him from secretly supporting an organization like Al-Qaida, whose cause he obviously supported?

Anyway, that's what my common sense tells me. And if you object to my 'theatrics,' please tone down the obscenity and I will do my best to reciprocate with the so-called theatrics. Censored or not, I find it offensive, especially when directed at me, and would appreciate it if you would refrain yourself.

This can easily be defined as terrorism, however, it must be acknowledged that much of the Arab world is in support of the Palestinian movement in exactly the same way, particularly Saudi Arabia.

Does the popularity of terrorism make it cease to be terrorism? The concept of "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" is a fallacy. Terrorism is terrorism, that's all there is to it, no matter how many people or nations support it. That anyone would support a Palestinian suicide bomber who walks onto a bus or into a restaurant in order to kill as many inocent civilians as he/she can is an abomination. If it wasn't for Palestinian terrorism, I might bring myself to support Palestine. As it is, no way.

Sure, we removed a brutal dictator. So what about Robert Mugabe, the guy who runs the Ukraine, Kuchma? What about Lukashenko who runs Belarus? What about Fidel Castro, right in our own back yard? We could go on, and on….. There are many other "brutal dictators" in the world that are offering support to Al-Qaeda as well as other terrorists that are aligned against the West, particularly in Indo-China.

Simple: they should be taken out, as well. I don't know if this will happen, and in fact I doubt it will, but that does not change the fact that it should be done. The fact that evil is widespread in the world does not make it any less evil, and does not mean that it should not be dealt with.

The decrease in defense funding was to match the decrease in need for global, strategic assets, particularly long-range weaponry, nuclear weapons and their maintenance and storage, etc.

But the cutting of the CIA is a different issue. While the end of the Cold War did make the world safer, we allowed ourselves to become complacent, ignoring the rising threat of terrorism. In today's world, information is everything, and the cutting of our intelligence agencies reduced our ability to get the information we needed.

But the world is a different place. The threat is also different. No longer are these same assets needed and the counter-terrorist needs can be far more cost effective.

But does this mean that we should reduce the effectiveness of our intelligence agencies as much as we did? It is the job of the CIA to adapt to changing threats, but when they are hamstrung by politicians, they can no longer do so.

Bush was the President in charge of the dissemination of information. If his staff were too incompetent to interpret the intel correctly, then he deserves the boot.

It is the job of the CIA to gather intellegence information. The CIA budget has been cut strenuously since the Cold War, to the point that (according to David Kay), the CIA had no assets on the ground in Iraq just prior to the war. The President had to act on the information he was given, and he performed admirably, taking out a percieved (and most likely actual) threat. What's more, George Tenet, head of the CIA, was a Clinton appointee. To lay the entire intellegence failure at Bush's feet is to politicize the issue, which would be a grave mistake. Instead of playing politics with such a catastrophe, we should be finding out how it happened and working to fix it, which the President is doing.

I believe that you have allowed your hatred for Bush to cloud your judgment. I agree that there was an inteligence failure prior to the war in Iraq, but to say that the President should have seen it before hand or that it was intirely Bush's fault is to believe that he should be some kind of super-human psychic.

Furthermore, you cling to the UN, an organization that you have said youself was corrupt and incompetent. The information that President Clinton was given said that Sadam Hussein was a threat to the security of America. President Bush was given this same information, and came to the same conclusion. The difference between the two, though, is that President Bush had the spine to stand up and defy the will of an obviously incompetent organization and do what was in the best interests of the security of America.

To say that the President shouldn't have ordered the invasion of Iraq with the intelligence that he was given is comparable to saying that if he had gotten strong but not 100% reliable intelligence before 9-11 that terrorists were going to fly planes into the World Trade Center, he should have done nothing because we just didn't know for sure.

We gave a great gift to the people of Iraq - the gift of freedom. To say that we didn't have the right is belittling to every single person who has fought and/or died in the honest defence of the freedom of this and every other country around the world, and to those soldiers who are fighting in Iraq today.

SkinWalker · February 4, 2004

Originally posted by rccar328
However, to lay this at Bush's feet is to be dishonest.

Actually, I fault each administration that has ever engaged in a military action of significance since WWII. I think this is an issue that should be reviewed by the Supreme Court and that some quantitative limitations on "police actions" created (i.e. numbers of troops, amounts of equipment, types of weaponry, etc.)

Originally posted by rccar328
Why would they hide a hydrogen production facility in a trailer? ... I see no reason for anyone to hide the production of a simple gas used for weather balloons. While this is a possibility, it is extremely unlikely.

Actually, this is exactly how it's done in our own military. My unit used to rely on MET Data (meteorlogical) from a unit that was essentially made up of meteorologists. It isn't feasible or sensible to transport hydrogen to a theater in many cases, so a very basic process of chemistry is used to create it. Knowing temperature and wind direction of various altitudes in various localities is vital to the computation of ballastic munitions (artillery).

Originally posted by rccar328
If Iraq destroyed their WMD, why did they not provide documentation to prove it?

Who knows? David Kay suggested that they wanted to maintain the perception that they still had such weapons to keep fear among their neighbors and various groups within the country. That sounds plausible. In addition, why would they expect that documentation they presented would be accepted? That begs the question, why didn't they simply create the documentation to begin with?

Originally posted by rccar328
Before our troops moved in, Bush placed the burden of proof on Iraq’s shoulders – if they had destroyed the weapons, all they had to do was to prove it.

It seems apparent that we gave them an impossible task. The inspections teams were getting cooperation, particularly in the weeks just prior to the invasion. The "proof" was being offered, but not acknowledged.

Originally posted by rccar328
First off, the war in Iraq is part of the war on terror, whether you're willing to admit/believe it or not.

Sure. I agree. It was billed as part of the so-called War on Terror. But this is a con that you and the rest of the more gullible of us are readily accepting without question or scrutiny. And it doesn't hold up to either as I've already demonstrated.

Originally posted by rccar328
To arbitrarily assume that the Hussein regime had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with terrorism against the US is clear short-sightedness and intellectual dishonesty.

But I didn't assume this arbitrarily. I examined the facts. I viewed the evidence. I asked questions. In fact, if you search this very forum for a thread of about a year ago, you'll see the very questions I posed.

Originally posted by rccar328
Our troops found a suspected Al-Qaida camp IN IRAQ during the invasion.

This camp was, in fact, located in the ALLIED and KURDISH CONTROLLED regions. If this evidence is so damning, why isn't it being paraded by the Bush admin so as to win a few more popularity points for the upcoming election? Remember, one who thinks critically asks the right questions and doesn't settle for the status quo simply because the lock-step of those with whom one identifies most with wants it.

Originally posted by rccar328
If he would so overtly support these terrorists, what would keep him from secretly supporting an organization like Al-Qaida, whose cause he obviously supported?

Terrorism is terrorism, that's all there is to it, no matter how many people or nations support it.

So is your argument turning to the fallacy that "if a government supports terrorism, it requires action from the other world powers?" If so, define "terrorism."

Originally posted by rccar328
I believe that you have allowed your hatred for Bush to cloud your judgment.

I don't "hate" Bush nearly as much as you might believe. In fact, I voted for him once. As time wore on, I saw the deception he created and realized that this man has no business being the leader of the world's most powerful nation. I wanted Bush to be a good President. The evidence is against that so I've changed my perspective of him.

Originally posted by rccar328
To say that the President shouldn't have ordered the invasion of Iraq with the intelligence that he was given is comparable to saying that if he had gotten strong but not 100% reliable intelligence before 9-11 that terrorists were going to fly planes into the World Trade Center, he should have done nothing because we just didn't know for sure.

Good strawman. Apples and oranges though.

Originally posted by rccar328
To say that we didn't have the right is belittling to every single person who has fought and/or died in the honest defence of the freedom of this and every other country around the world, and to those soldiers who are fighting in Iraq today.

I'll tell you what's belittling: the sacrifices that over 520 United States citizens stationed in Iraq have made for the advancement of a selfish agenda that has been in the works for years. I notice that you don't comment on the argument I postulated about OPEC and production manipulation to drive down prices. This is what's belittling to the American servicemen who gave their lives like so many pawns in Iraq. And this is what's belittling to the untold thousands of Iraqis that we freed by ensuring their deaths in bombings during and after the war.

Belittling.

toms · February 4, 2004

there has become such a cloud of misinformation, mis-linking, guilt by association and clever ommisions on behalf of both the US and the Uk governments on this that it is almost impossible to determine who knew what, who supported what and what is related to what in any sensible way.

As far as I'm aware there was a UN resolution from about 10 years ago on letting in weapons inspectors that wasn't enforced.

After 9/11 GW wanted to invade iraq (for a various selection of reasons) but Tony Blair needed to go through the UN route t get any suppot in the Uk so he convinced GW to go through the UN.

The US and UK then basically "forced" a whole range of countries to bring in a updated resolution requiring the weapons inspectors back and proof of no weapons or the US would invade. They did this by threats, coercion & bribes in a number of cases, although a number of countries also supported them willingly. Crucially, this resolution required them to come back to the UN to get a final go ahead for invasion

The inspectors then went back in, but didn't find anything. This always struck me as a bitlike those old fashioned witch trials (there, i'm bringing in salem:D ) as saddam was damned if they found something and damned if they didn't.

Personal theory: Saddam was playing brinkmanship and judging that if he didn't appear to be a threat he would be either invaded or deposed from within. He wanted us to think he had weapons but would only use them on invading troops*. He gambled and lost. end theory.

*which is what most of the intelligence community turn out to have believed.

The US got impatient and got the inspectors called out. They then spent about a week applying huge ammounts of pressure to all the counties that they had got to vote for them the first time to get hem to authorise invasion. It didn't work. THey basically admitted as much. Rather than risk loosing the vote they went in saying that they "didn't need it" as they had already had authorisation. Something most people dispute.

-------

well, that is the history. I think before it satarted I said that it would probably be over quickly, they would probably get rid of saddam, but it would also set a terrible precident, totally undercut the UN, destabilise the middle east and not decrease the threat from terrorism.

I hate to say it, but as far as I can tell I was spot on in every area.

Getting rid of saddam was a great thing for the iraqi people, but did nothing to help the rest of the world. Maybe helpig the iraqi people is enough, but it sets a terrible precedent of invading countries that you don't like or consider "up to your standards". It also reinforced the world's view of the US as biased and random in it's support and opposition to various countries.

The UN lost all it's power an influence, and while this was partly due to it's structure it was mainly due to the US bypassing it entirely. Something like the Un will never work totally efficiently, as there are so many countires each with their own interests. But i firmly beleive it is the best hope for peace on the planet. Having 2 of its biggest and supposedly best members just totally ignore it sets a terrible example. Why should any of the other countries that we "don't like" take any notice of it now, when we don't?

As for george galloway (UK), france and russia. I'm sure there were various factors in the opposition, but i think it is daft to suggest they were all bought by saddam, or that they were cowards. Past history played a big part (france in the region, russia opposing american interventionism at all points) but you have to remember that the majority of people in both countries were against war, that is what a democracy is all about.

The middle east hasn't destabilised as much as i expected, but it has defiately got worse. Support for al quaida in the are has increased. The US is quickly getting stuck where it doesn't want to be, and NOW it turns to the UN for help. The goverment that is most likely to take over in iraq (if it doesn't decend into tribal warfare) is a highly religious one that will be much more supportive of Al Quaida than saddam ever was.

The threat of terrorism has increased, not decreased since we won in iraq. The defeat of saddam has had no effect on Al Quaida at all, except maybe to increase anti american feeling around the world and therefore increase their support. Do you feel any safer now? I sure don't. Airports getting closed, flights getting canceled, bombs in various countries.

------

I have to say that i come to the conclusion that it was decided to go to war in iraq BEFORE the justification was found. But i still can't figure out why they were so keen on it. I can't see the minor oil savings and the history with the bush(sr) administration being big enough reasons. but i don't know what was.

------

On a related note, I also said just after 9/11 that I wondered whether this would cause americans to consider WHY the rest of the world hates them so much & whether it would cause a decrease in personal freedoms, which i would consider to be a victory for the terrorists.

unfortunately, it doesn't seem to have had ANY effect on the first question (except america is now MORE convinced that it is right). Here is a hint: protectionism, favoritism, bias on the world stage, "do as we say, not as we do". All the stuff that annoys everyone, all the stuff they have done MORE of since 9/11. Way to make more enemies!!!

The second question also has an unfortunate answer, with the UK and US now locking people up without trial, bringing in new monitoring and patriot laws, increases in racism, highly biased media, and so on.

(calling for the sacking of susan sarandon & martin sheen cos they opposed the war, forcing european airlines to hand over personal info even though it is against european law, etc..)

Way to set an example to all those other states of how a free country should be run.

rccar328 · February 4, 2004

I'll tell you what's belittling: the sacrifices that over 520 United States citizens stationed in Iraq have made for the advancement of a selfish agenda that has been in the works for years. I notice that you don't comment on the argument I postulated about OPEC and production manipulation to drive down prices.

So you're calling an action to try to ensure the safety of Americans (with probable alterior motives) and the freedom of millions of Iraqis (the deaths of civilians in war is not a crime - it is an unfortunate and unavoidable curcumstance of war, and it was kept as minimal as possible). This is an affront to the troops who represent and defend the freest nation in the world.

This itself is belittling to the troops because it takes the meaning out of every death that has occured in securing and defending the freedom of the Iraqi people.

And what is this "selfish agenda" that you refer to? The idea that Bush wanted some sort of personal profit from the war has to mean he wants Iraq's oil in one way or another, yet you say the price of oil would plummet. How does it benefit the oil industry's profit margin if the price of their goods were to drop so drastically? The only thing I can see this doing is cutting into their profits.

Personally, I would be interested to know more about your OPEC argument - I will be looking at those sources you cited when I can find the time (if possible).

Also, I didn't comment on OPEC because I quite honestly don't know much of anything about it. You're so quick to rip into me if I give an unsupported agrument, and since I don't know about OPEC, I kept my yapper shut (although personally, I wouldn't mind some cheaper gas prices).

David Kay suggested that they wanted to maintain the perception that they still had such weapons to keep fear among their neighbors and various groups within the country. That sounds plausible. In addition, why would they expect that documentation they presented would be accepted? That begs the question, why didn't they simply create the documentation to begin with?

This doesn't change the fact that if Saddam didn't want us to invade, all he had to do was prove that he didn't have the weapons. If he destroyed them, he could've provided the documentation, and let inspectors work to verify his documentation. If they had created documentation, chances are that it would be proved false, and gotten Hussein into even more trouble. And it's not our fault if he withheld the information to keep power. He put himself in a no-win scenario by terrorizing, torturing and murdering his own people, and then pissing off the most powerful nation in the world. Personally, I wouldn't have minded seeing him show that he had no WMD, giving the people of Iraq the courage to rise up and revolt because the threat that they'd be killed with chemical or biological weapons was gone.

The "proof" was being offered, but not acknowledged.

What about the humongous document released that was supposed to verify the absence of bio-and chemical weapons but in fact said nothing about them at all? We were looking for documentation and physical evidence that the weapons had been destroyed. Hussein decided to play games, but after 9/11, we weren't in the mood.

Good strawman. Apples and oranges though.

It's called an analogy. What I said is that the President responded to a percieved threat coming from Iraq. To call this action unjustified based on the argument that the intelligence was inacurate is like saying that if the President recieved intelligence beforehand about 9/11, he shouldn't have sent troops into Afghanistan to stop Al-Qaida before 9/11 because the intelligence he was given was not totally accurate.

In any case, the argument of faulty intelligence gets down to nothing more than 20/20 hindsight anyway. It's easy to look back and say the President shouldn't have gone in bacause intelligence was faulty, but we didn't know that until our inspectors moved in after the invasion and didn't find the weapons.

What's more, before the military moved in, there was too much evidence that Saddam was moving the weapons around in an effort to hide them from inspectors (squabbling over inspection warning times, etc.).

So is your argument turning to the fallacy that "if a government supports terrorism, it requires action from the other world powers?" If so, define "terrorism."

Terrorism:

From Webster's Dictionary

the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion

I do, in fact, believe that if a nation is actively supporting terrorism, pressure should be brought to bear against that nation, whether it be diplomatic, or, in extreme cases, militaristic. Iraq was an extreme case - at the very least, we know that Iraq supported Ansar-al-Islam, which was a part of the Al-Qaida network.

I wanted Bush to be a good President. The evidence is against that so I've changed my perspective of him.

The evidence against that is that Bush applies a moral standard to the world around him, which you happen to disagree with. The evidence agains that is that Bush is willing to act on intelligence pointing to a percieved threat coming from a nation that obviously possesses animosity toward America. The evidence against that is that Bush was not willing to join the appeasers on the UN security council (remember - appeasement didn't work in WW2, why should that be different now?). And don't tell me that the WW2 comparison doesn't hold up - the only reason this conflict has turned out so differently is because we didn't let Hussein's forces take over Kuait and gain the power needed to spread across the Middle East (we learned our lesson from WW2 & didn't let history repeat itself).

On a related note, I also said just after 9/11 that I wondered whether this would cause americans to consider WHY the rest of the world hates them so much & whether it would cause a decrease in personal freedoms, which i would consider to be a victory for the terrorists.

There are two kinds of hatred towards America - those that are jealous of our prosperity, and those that are revolted at the immorality so prevalent in our society. The first is not legitimate - if you're jealous, maybe you should try to better yourself and your nation. The second is mainly on moral and religious grounds. Personally, I am disgusted with the moral depravity across our culture, but I'm not so extreme that I'd physically attack America because of it. The religious extremists hate us because of women's rights. They hate us because of Hollywood (all of those left-wing wackos who are so willing to defend the people who want nothing more than to kill them). They don't just hate us for our politics, they hate us for our culture. Look at the culture of the Taliban. Men rule. They can beat their wives with no repurcussions. Women have to keep their heads & faces covered. And if you violate Islamic law, you face the wrath of Allah by the hands of men.

And don't give me this "if we decrease our freedoms the terrorists win" stuff. The idea that we could have complete and total freedom and have any kind of safety is to buy into a lie. We have no way to secure our nation without giving up some freedoms, and saying you are not willing to do that is saying that you don't really want to be safe. The founding fathers understood this (I had a really great quote from Thomas Jefferson to go here, but i forgot it).

As far as the supposed "silencing" of celebrities who spoke out, this is bull. I used to like the Dixie Chicks. I don't listen to them anymore because I don't agree with their political views. Every time I do listen to them, I'm just reminded of their spouting of left-wing nonsense.

What these celebrities see as "silencing" comes from their assumption that their fans agree with their political views. I didn't buy Sawshank Redemption because I agree with Tim Robbins' political views - I bought it because it's a great movie. People don't want to hear actors' and singers' politics, they want to see their movies and hear their music. Once they spout their extremist political views, they have tainted every part they play and every song they sing. We enjoy actors because we do not know them aside from the parts they play - it makes it easier to see them as the different characters. And it's better that way.

The UN lost all it's power an influence, and while this was partly due to it's structure it was mainly due to the US bypassing it entirely. Something like the Un will never work totally efficiently, as there are so many countires each with their own interests. But i firmly beleive it is the best hope for peace on the planet. Having 2 of its biggest and supposedly best members just totally ignore it sets a terrible example. Why should any of the other countries that we "don't like" take any notice of it now, when we don't?

It wasn't the US's bypassing the UN that rendered it innefective and impotent, it was Iraq's ignoring resolution after resolution with no consequences except some meaningless economic sanctions. The US didn't help the UN to gain any credibility, but when the security of our nation is threatened, the safety of our people (at least under President Bush) takes precedence over the reputation of an organization that rendered itself impotent by refusing to enforce its own resolutions, as well it should.

The middle east hasn't destabilised as much as i expected, but it has defiately got worse. Support for al quaida in the are has increased. The US is quickly getting stuck where it doesn't want to be, and NOW it turns to the UN for help. The goverment that is most likely to take over in iraq (if it doesn't decend into tribal warfare) is a highly religious one that will be much more supportive of Al Quaida than saddam ever was.

Yes, the region is less stable. There is more support for terrorism in the region. And that support will be there until those people realize that it's not profitable to kill innocent civilians in acts of terrorism or to support those who do so.

As for criticizing the US for turning to the UN now, if the UN is as great as you seem to think, why do you object to this? Personally, I believe that the UN should be reorganized before we turn to it for anything. What's more, the US didn't ask for the UN to come in, the Iraqi governing council did.

The only way that the new government of Iraq will be more supportive of terrorism than Saddam's will be if the President gives into political pressure and doesn't stay the course. In which case I will loose a great deal of respect for him.

I think before it satarted I said that it would probably be over quickly, they would probably get rid of saddam, but it would also set a terrible precident, totally undercut the UN, destabilise the middle east and not decrease the threat from terrorism.

This goes to the heart of your problem: you believe, for some reason, that this will be over quickly. IT'S NOT OVER YET!!! The only thing that has ended is major military action in Iraq. If you believe that creating a new government would be a quick venture, you're dead wrong. It took the US years to reform Japan & Germany after World War 2. Going at the process of creating a new government in Iraq too quickly would be a fatal error, but for some reason many people think it should be a done deal by now. That quite simply is not possible, if we do want to create a stable government.

The Iraq conflict did set a precident: don't screw with the US. I have no problem with that, though I don't doubt that you do. You may try to enlighten me as to your objections, but I doubt that I would agree or understand your reasons.

As for decreasing the threat of terrorism, the War on Terror also is a long process. This is no secret; various members of the Bush administration have said it time and time again. The actions in Iraq and Afghanistan are steps toward reducing the terrorist threat, but we aren't done yet.

The view that the world doesn't seem safer is due to several factors:

First, the terrorist are becoming desperate. They are on the defensive now and are more likely to try something extreme. This is a risk, but a necessary one if we are to eliminate them.

Second, we are more aware of global terrorism now than we were before. We look at possible threats instead of concentrating on our pocketbooks all of the time. Our concentration on terrorism makes it seem much more prevalent than it was when we weren't concentrated on it.

Third, I believe that the terrorists understand our way of government. They are more desperate than ever to initiate a major operation on US soil because they know that if they succeed, there is a good likelihood that Bush will not be re-elected, allowing someone who is less of a threat to them to take office (i.e. any of the Democratic Presidential candidates).

Okay, that's it. I'm done now.

And thanks for removing the obscenity.

El Sitherino · February 5, 2004

You are spouting your political views, but you deny anyone with those apposed to yours? How hypocritical. Just because people have views different from yours, doesn't mean you can't like their music, or such, or that they can't be friends or anything like that, Me and Lukeskywalker1 are friends but we have extremely different takes on religion and such. Also most countries hate us, because most citizens (such as yourself) have nothing but an egotistical attitude about ourselves. I have gotten into some bouts with Skinwalker, but I have come to see the error in my ways on those issues.

Also, what makes anyone against your thought process an extremist? Because they don't hold the same values and opinons as you? I agree most of americas values and morals have gone down the crapper but we also need to get rid of major taboos within our society.

It wasn't too long ago that republicans said blacks are a threat to the white race, and couldn't get a job that paid enough to support their family, simply because they were black and women were legal household slaves, they lacked the basic human rights that were to be given to all.

You say, even if Saddam sent info saying he had no weapons, it would have been false, thus action would still have been taken, so then what is the point of him sending information?

Remember, The law of life is, remove a bad egg and a worse one replaces it.

SkinWalker · February 5, 2004

So you're calling an action to try to ensure the safety of Americans

There's that fallacy again. Invading Iraq had nothing to do with the safety of Americans. That's the whole point. We were never in any immediate or impending danger. We attacked because it was the plan for many years and the sympathy of the American public after 9/11 was ripe for conning the public out there support.

Also, I didn't comment on OPEC because I quite honestly don't know much of anything about it.

Fair enough. But this key to seeing the most probable, real motivation for the invasion of Iraq. Oil economics are a bit complicated, and I don't pretend to be an expert, but after reviewing the issue over the course of the last couple years, I see the pattern of action as well as the dynamics of oil trade that give credence to the hypothesis that oil trade was the central reason for motivating the conflict. I don’t subscribe to the anti-war rhetoric of "no blood for oil" in the sense that they believe. It's more complex than this. In fact, this is one of the main reasons that my support for the Bush administration diminished after 9/11.

This doesn't change the fact that if Saddam didn't want us to invade, all he had to do was prove that he didn't have the weapons. … personally, I wouldn't have minded seeing him show that he had no WMD, giving the people of Iraq the courage to rise up and revolt because the threat that they'd be killed with chemical or biological weapons was gone.

I'm in agreement. In fact, I believe (the evidence is lacking, but the indications, in my opinion, are there) that the urgency of the Bush admin to push for war was due in part to backing Hussein into a corner and preventing him from actually demonstrating that any WMDs were gone. In fact, I also believe this is why discussion about the viability of the WMDs in question were also avoided by the Bush admin. Should the Iraqi people have realized that the Iraqi government was without instruments of terror, a revolt would have been likely. An internal coupe or revolt would have eliminated the need for U.S. troops and subsequent occupation. Sans occupation, our control and influence over the new Iraqi government would have been minimal. This would not give an assurance that the Iraqi oil production would continue in the desired manner so as to bust OPEC.

I admit, the preceding paragraph is pure speculation on my part, and perhaps one that is only moderately informed. However, if I'm right, OPEC will start to be influenced beginning in 2005 to 2006. Gas prices will fall.

quote:
The "proof" was being offered, but not acknowledged.

What about the humongous document released that was supposed to verify the absence of bio-and chemical weapons but in fact said nothing about them at all?

I agree… was an obvious ruse on Hussein's part. The "proof" I was referring to was the results of the weapons inspectors. They were actually uncovering physical evidence in the form of tubing, warheads, artillery shells, etc. Much of this was questionable at first, perhaps even now, but artifactual evidence was being uncovered.

quote:
Good strawman. Apples and oranges though.

It's called an analogy.

No, it's a strawman. You created a separate and unrelated argument. The United States was never in any danger from Iraq. There was no evidence to suggest this. The CIA's investigator (a former ambassador) revealed long ago that the evidence was forged. To suggest that the CIA didn't bother to inform the State Department of their findings is ludicrous. There's a very low probability that the organization would go to the trouble and expense of investigating and not make the findings of the investigation available.

But the strawman is the analogy. To suggest that terrorists flying planes into the WTC is the same as Iraq refusing to comply with UN Resolutions is a strawman argument.

It's easy to look back and say the President shouldn't have gone in bacause intelligence was faulty, but we didn't know that until our inspectors moved in after the invasion and didn't find the weapons.

That's a very weak and unconvincing argument. At the very least, it suggests incompetence on the part of the Bush administration. You're helping me make my points.

What's more, before the military moved in, there was too much evidence that Saddam was moving the weapons around in an effort to hide them from inspectors (squabbling over inspection warning times).

Surely the "squabbling" isn't the "too much evidence" you are suggesting?

Look, I'm not trying to defend Hussein and his regime. They were certainly bad for their country. Here's what I'm saying:

Hussein is/was but one in a long list of equally "bad" leaders in the world.

The Bush administration lied to the American people about the threat of Iraq. The lies were not direct for the most part, but largely indirect. Even though Cheney, Rumsfeld and Rice stated at different time things like, "were sure they have such-and-such capabilities." The lies were in the form of innuendo and subtle remarks that created the general inference that Iraq was responsible for 9/11; that Iraq had nuclear weapons pointed at Chicago, etc.

Given the current agenda of eliminating Al-Qaeda, alternative solutions were more sensible than an all-out attack on Iraq. Military assets would have been more valuable in the Al-Qaeda response than in the Iraq invasion.

The invasion of Iraq and the military response to Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan are two, separate concepts and only one has anything to do with the war on terrorism. Only one is therefore justified in our so-called Global War on Terror.

The Bush administration was aware that the intelligence used by Bush during his 2003 State of the Union Address was false. There is anecdotal evidence (the worst kind, I admit) that Cheney actually sat with middle-level CIA operatives and berated them because he didn't like their intelligence reports prior to the speech.

The UN created the Resolutions, yet the Bush administration circumvented the UN.

The real motivation for the neo-conservatives that are part of the Bush administration is the influence of OPEC and the oil trade.

If the above points are true, then the 520+ soldiers killed in Iraq were for naught.

quote:
From Webster's Dictionary

the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion

I do, in fact, believe that if a nation is actively supporting terrorism, pressure should be brought to bear against that nation, whether it be diplomatic, or, in extreme cases, militaristic.

By the definition you cited, Israel falls into the category of a "terrorist state." I won't veer off topic too much, but consider the frequent news bits we've heard over the years about Israeli missiles being fired into apartment buildings in order to kill a sleeping senior Palestinian in retaliation to some other terrorist act upon Israel. Don't Palestinians let their wives and children sleep in their apartments? Don't multiple families live in Palestinian apartments?

I'm not suggesting that we invade Israel, however, I am attempting to point out that by setting a precedent of holding accountable those who fit in the looser definitions of terrorist, we find ourselves being hypocritical.

Iraq was an extreme case - at the very least, we know that Iraq supported Ansar-al-Islam, which was a part of Al-Qaida.

I've looked for the evidence of the Iraqi government's support of Ansar al-Islam and I don't see it. I'm not saying your information isn't right, but the scientist in me wants to see the evidence that supports the hypothesis. Likewise, the evidence that links Ansar al-Islam to Al-Qaeda.

I couldn't get your Lexis-Nexis link to work because of the way I log into the L-N database, but if you could give me the citation to the article or your keyword search plus the item number of the results, I can get the article.

The evidence agains that is that Bush applies a moral standard to the world around him, which you disagree with.

I'm holding Bush's morals in question. In fact, based on the evidence I've seen, as well as my own gut-instinct, I believe Bush to be an amoral person. At the very least, he's an elitist who's attitude is condescending toward the "average" person. The latter is only my personal perception, however.

The evidence agains that is that Bush is willing to act intelligence pointing to a percieved threat coming from a nation that obviously possesses animosity toward America.

And one of my points was that it is not possible to invade every nation that harbors animosity toward the United States, particularly if they are not a direct threat. It is bad diplomatic and foreign policy to do so randomly as well.

The evidence against that is that Bush was not willing to join the appeasers on the UN security council (remember - appeasement didn't work in WW2, why should that be different now?).

"Appeasers" is an opinion and not an empirical description. The argument is invalid. Moreover, options existed beyond "either invasion or appeasement."

There are two kinds of hatred towards America - those that are jealous of our prosperity, and those that are revolted at the immorality so prevalent in our society.

Just two? Are you sure? Don't be so quick to think in terms of dichotomy and duality.

On another note, I'd like to say that debating with you is an interesting challenge. You do present your arguments well. Even if they are wrong

toms · February 5, 2004

this page is taking ages to load

i don't have much time, but it always bugs me when americans say that everyone hates them because they are jealous of them. I have NEVER met anyone from any country (rich or poor) who was jealous of america.

It is like the british empire, who went out entirely convinced of their own correctness, superiority and the fact they were helping the poor unfortunate people of the world who must want to be just like them. They could never understand why everyone wouldn't look on them and want to be just like them.

Half the conflicts in the world still stem from this attitude (and the other haldf from the same attitude by the US afte WW2).

People aren't even that bothered by the corruption of your society as you put it, except that it is another case of america being arbitrary and hypocritical in telling people to do one thing and doing another. Supporting some countries and not others. Using economic threats and intimidation to buly other nations. and so on.

Of course, hardcore terrorists are so set in their ways that they won't change even if the US sharpens up it's act, but their support will dry up and they can't act without support.

(look at the IRA, finally being angled into giving up violence mainly due to the fact that most of its funding FROM THE US has dried up since 9/11.)

rccar328 · February 6, 2004

I've come to a conclusion in this debate, and decided that this will be my last post in this thread because it is extremely involved and I just don't have the time.

Skinwalker, no matter how hard I try, I cannot bring myself to believe that you do not hate Bush. No matter how much you say you don't really hate the man, you lay the blame for the entire intelligence failure at his feet.

Such a drastic failure of intelligence cannot reside on the President alone - there was a chain of events leading up to it. Among these events is the cutting of our intelligence agancies by Congress after the Cold War, and the closed-society in Iraq, which did not allow the CIA to have agents in-country prior to the war. If Bush was wrong to invade, then Clinton was just as wrong to order bombings in Iraq, because he was using the same intelligence data. Finally, you believe that Bush is amoral because his moral standards do not agree with yours.

Also, I believe that you are what is known as a UN-worshiper. You agreed with me when I said that the UN is corrupt and incompetent, yet you say that we should submit to their supposed authority, which they rendered meaningless when they refused to back up their own resolutions on Iraq. This is absurd.

You also say that the real reason for the Iraq invasion was to bust OPEC and lower oil prices. Personally, I don't have any problem with this. Of course, my knowledge of OPEC has always been the fact that they're the ones who were always artificially inflating the price of gas, so they're not really on my good list. I wouldn't mind seeing the price of oil drop - it would definitely make it a lot easier on the average consumer.

Finally, you refuse to make the short intellectual hop into acknowledging that the Hussein regime very likely did have ties to Al-Qaida. Sadam without a doubt possessed a very strong animosity toward the US. So did Al-Qaida. We know that Iraq was associated with Ansar-al-Islam. Personally, I can't fathom why it's such a stretch to believe that a scumbag like Sadam Hussein was dealing (directly or indirectly) with a scumbag like Bin Laden - there are just too many hints to ignore.

Now to address toms:

When it comes to jealosy towards America, this isn't going to rest in the common man. It applies to leaders.

Also, your saying that people aren't bothered by the corruption of American society is simply wrong. I'm talking about radical Islam here. Just look at the Superbowl, for cryin out loud! It's things like the Superbowl half-time show that radical Islam wants to kill Americans for. They want to kill us because America is the world's leading exporter of culture. They want to kill us because of our movies, television, and music. They want to kill us because when they look at America, they see a country that was built on moral values, and they see that those moral values are not present in the majority of our society. This is why 9/11 happened. And this is why we cannot afford to stop until every terrorist is dead - because they will never stop untill we are all dead.

You also cite the IRA slowing down its violence because it is receiving less financial support from the US. THIS IS THE WHOLE IDEA! (not with the Irish, but with radical Islam). One of the multitude of reasons for invading Iraq was to get rid of a vital support mechanism for terrorist organizations.

InsaneSith:

I'm not saying that music and Hollywood stars don't have the right to spout their political views. That's simple freedom of speech - they can say what they want. The difference between them and me is that they use their popularity (which was not gained because of their political views) to spout their extremist views across the world - I'm debating on a freakin' Star Wars forum. And they are not extremists because they disagree with me. They are extremists becaust their views are on the extreme other side from me. As for having an egotistical view of myself, I can think of two possible ways of interpreting this:

First, you think I'm some kind of egomaniac. If I was, it would be impossible for me to submit myself to a higher authority, which would make it impossible for me to possess the Christian faith that I do.

Second, you're talking about national pride. I'm proud of my country. A lot of people are, and not just in America. If people in other countries have a problem with Americans being proud of their countries, they should get over it, because quite simply, there is nothing wrong with being proud of where you live. I live in the richest, free-est nation in the world, and I'm darn proud of it.

I think SkinWalker's a great guy (and if you're really a girl I mean no offense). I would like to think we've developed a friendship of sorts through our debate here. I respect him. I also think he's wrong. This doesn't mean I hate him, or even dislike him, even if our language does get strong at times, just that we disagree.

You say we should get rid of major taboos in our society. From the slavery analogy, I can only assume that you're refering to the gay civil rights movement. As I stated in another thread, I'm opposed to homosexuality & gay marriage on religious grounds. Take God out of the picture, though, and there is no reason to outlaw gay marriage. or bigamy. or polygamy. Where does it end?

What's more, America's most fundamental laws (and most nations' laws) are founded on moral standards. Take God out of the picture, though, and there are no moral standards. Laws would have no meaning - anyone could do whatever they wished, and you can't say no to them. Who are you to judge them?

Also, your little slur against republicans is meaningless. Political parties polarize and reverse through time - today's Republican Party is very different from that of the 1850s. Abraham Lincioln was a Republican, after all. The fact that the Republican Party was on the wrong side of the Civil Rights movement does not mean that it is the same Republican Party as today.

Finally, I never said that if Saddam offered proof that he had no WMD that it would have been false and we would have gone to war anyway. What I said was that President Bush placed the burden of proof on Iraq - it was up to Saddam to provide the proof, and that that proof would have to be verified. As it turned out, all Saddam gave us was a meaningless document. He had his chance, and he screwed it up.

SkinWalker, it's been fun. I'll be looking around and commenting when I can, and I look forward to debating you in the future.

And if you still want to take a look at those 2 Lexis-Nexis links, let me know and I'll do what I can to get them to you.

From the 2003 State of the Union:

Twelve years ago, Saddam Hussein faced the prospect of being the last casualty in a war he had started and lost. To spare himself, he agreed to disarm of all weapons of mass destruction. For the next 12 years, he systematically violated that agreement. He pursued chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, even while inspectors were in his country. Nothing to date has restrained him from his pursuit of these weapons -- not economic sanctions, not isolation from the civilized world, not even cruise missile strikes on his military facilities.

Almost three months ago, the United Nations Security Council gave Saddam Hussein his final chance to disarm. He has shown instead utter contempt for the United Nations, and for the opinion of the world. The 108 U.N. inspectors were sent to conduct -- were not sent to conduct a scavenger hunt for hidden materials across a country the size of California. The job of the inspectors is to verify that Iraq's regime is disarming. It is up to Iraq to show exactly where it is hiding its banned weapons, lay those weapons out for the world to see, and destroy them as directed. Nothing like this has happened.

Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option.

rccar328 · February 7, 2004

I wanted to add this on because it is current and applies to this debate.

Many people have argued that the President was wrong to present Iraq as an imminent threat. Where people got this idea is beyond me. In fact, from the quote in my last post, we see that Presiden Bush specifically said that Iraq was not an imminent threat. Yet.

The headlines I've seen today disgust me. Over and over I see things like this: "CIA Boss: Iraq not an imminent threat "

Instead of reading the headlines and listening to the sound clips of George Tenet's speech, read the full transcript.

Read George Tenet's own words on what intelligence was presented to the President. Read the director of the CIA's own words about what the President knew and when. Pay particular attention to the section where Tenet talks about a "source who had direct access to Saddam and his inner circle." Read this speech with an open mind, and then determine whether the President, based on this information, was justified in taking action against Iraq. Forget the UN. They made themselves irrelevant by refusing to enforce their own resolutions.

Rember 9/11. Tell me if, based on the data outlined by George Tenet, whether Bush was right or wrong in going to war.

I believe, given the evidence at the time, Bush was absolutely right, and that he did it for the safety of America.

SkinWalker · February 8, 2004

Originally posted by rccar328I've come to a conclusion in this debate, and decided that this will be my last post in this thread because it is extremely involved and I just don't have the time.

I, too, think I'm nearing the end of this debate…. for now

Originally posted by rccar328Skinwalker, no matter how hard I try, I cannot bring myself to believe that you do not hate Bush. No matter how much you say you don't really hate the man, you lay the blame for the entire intelligence failure at his feet.

I have a significant amount of animosity for many of the policies, decisions and the overall condescending tone he takes with the American public whenever he gives a speech or press conference. But I don't hate the man. But blame him? Sure. I would expect that the leader of the world's most powerful nation might have a bit of responsibility for his intelligence assets as well as those within his cabinet who's advice he takes. And I'm not convinced, as you are, that the intelligence services suffered debilitating losses with budget cuts following the Cold War as you are. I'm sure they'd like to have bigger budgets, but the bottom line is that they had the ability to examine and investigate intelligence sources for credibility. And they did. The Niger fraud was uncovered prior to the President's State of the Union address.

I said it at least twice before, I'll say it once more: what would the CIA have to gain by going to the expense to investigate the Niger claim, but not ensure that the information was forwarded to the executive branch? If they could afford to send a former ambassador to Africa to conduct the investigation, surely it was within their budget to put a copy of the report in a FedEx to the Executive Office building (they use government couriers for this, not FedEx…. I'm just making a point) to Dick Cheney's desk.

Originally posted by rccar328Such a drastic failure of intelligence cannot reside on the President alone - there was a chain of events leading up to it. Among these events is the cutting of our intelligence agencies by Congress after the Cold War,

I'd like to see someone attempt to demonstrate that empirically, and I'm not just saying that. I would really like to see what actual effect can be documented on the budget cuts to the intelligence services. And then, evaluate the effect and see if it could have created the type of deficiency that inhibits obtaining good intelligence.

Originally posted by rccar328If Bush was wrong to invade, then Clinton was just as wrong to order bombings in Iraq, because he was using the same intelligence data.

And I've never attempted to defend Clinton's aggression against Iraq. I remember that it bothered me a bit, since I saw this as a way to deflect attention from the other troubles he was having… if memory is serving me correct.

Originally posted by rccar328Finally, you believe that Bush is amoral because his moral standards do not agree with yours.

Perhaps. But my moral standards don’t include insider trading (Harken Oil debacle), lying to my constituency (Gubernatorial campaign promise to not use the Governor's mansion as a stepping stone to the Whitehouse), probably lying under oath (the SCI funeral home scandal), deceiving the American public about the level of threat that Iraq presented, etc.

Originally posted by rccar328Also, I believe that you are what is known as a UN-worshiper. You agreed with me when I said that the UN is corrupt and incompetent, yet you say that we should submit to their supposed authority,

Let me clarify what I agree with in your view of the United Nations. The UN basically has two functions: monitoring of human rights within the world and mediating conflicts with member nations.

Referring to me as a "worshipper" implies that I hold something to be in supernatural authority. I assure you, I have no belief an anything supernatural or metaphysical that has an authority over the natural world. I don't discount the possibility, but I give it little probability.

Having gotten that out of the way, I don't see the United Nations as a corrupted entity, certainly less corrupt than our own government. I think that, like our own government, there are those individuals within the UN that are corrupt, but I don't believe the UN itself is corrupt. If it is, I haven't seen the evidence to suggest it.

As to the competence of the United Nations, it is only as competent as it's most powerful member state(s) allow it to be. I know how you like analogies, so I'll offer one (albeit off the cuff):

Imagine a single mother raising to sons. One is 16 and the other 10. The 10 year old is small in stature and diminished in physical strength compared to the mother, and therefore easy to coerce or manipulate in order to maintain expected behavioral parameters. The 16 year old, on the other hand, is much larger and more powerful than the mother. His adherence to the house rules is by choice and out of respect. Should he decide to act contrary to his mother, there would be little she could do, physically, to prevent it.

The 10 year old will likely observe the relationship of the 16 year old and learn from it. The ultimate decision of action for the 10 year old is the 10 year old's, but undoubtedly he will be influenced by what he observes.

Now that analogy is a bit unfair, since the UN is hardly a "parental" figure to the United States, if anything, it's the other way around, but it's interesting nonetheless.

The actions of the United States bear heavily on the ability for the United Nations to conduct business. If we choice to act outside of the bounds of UN policy, even if our government is sure that this is the more correct action, the United Nations is rendered incompetent. It's incompetence is the fault of the United States and other powerful nations that follow our example. The UN itself hasn't a standing army, air force, navy, etc. to deal with international disputes and incursions. Member nations supply this.

One thing the UN is very good at, is providing assistance and monitoring of the Democratic process in the developing world. To this, they have a very good track record as far as I can tell. The United Nations also puts out many publications and studies of the world situation, crises within the world, human development, democratic development, etc. I highly recommend checking their website.

Originally posted by rccar328You also say that the real reason for the Iraq invasion was to bust OPEC and lower oil prices. Personally, I don't have any problem with this.

I personally don't care for OPEC much either. However, I don't see the manipulation of OPEC as a valid reason for invading a sovereign nation. As a consumer, I, too, would like lower gas prices. But don't forget that gas is only a small part of the petroleum issue in our country. Chances are, you are clutching a petroleum-based product in your right hand even now. The manufacturing industry is greatly affected by the price of oil. The cascade effect of lower oil prices will give an enormous boost to our economy. But at the price of our "souls" if you believe in such things.

Originally posted by rccar328Finally, you refuse to make the short intellectual hop into acknowledging that the Hussein regime very likely did have ties to Al-Qaida.

That's not an intellectual hop, my friend, but a fallacious one. If I am presented with evidence to show the link between Al-Qaeda and the Baath Party, then I'll acknowledge a link. But I refuse to agree that there was collusion simply because they both hate the United States.

To punctuate this, there is significant evidence (Nakhoul, 2003) that suggests that Bin Laden had a considerable amount of contempt for Hussein and his secular lifestyle and refers to him as an infidel.

Originally posted by rccar328Sadam without a doubt possessed a very strong animosity toward the US. So did Al-Qaida.

And you call that an "intellectual" hop?

Originally posted by rccar328We know that Iraq was associated with Ansar-al-Islam.

Geographically, perhaps. But show me the evidence that the Baath Party was associated with Ansar al-Islam. At best, I see the evidence that Ansar al-Islam is a child of Al-Qaeda (Boucher, 2003), but there is overwhelming evidence that suggests that the Baath Party and the pre-invasion government was not directly connected with the organization. I've stated this before, but I'll do so again. Ansar al-Islam was based in the North Eastern corner of Iraq adjacent to the Iranian border and, therefore, outside the controlled regions of Saddam Hussein. The region was, in fact, largely controlled by the coalition since 1991.

Ansar al-Islam formed in 1998 (Katzman, 2004) as a radical faction of the Islamic Movement of Iraqi Kurdistan (IMIK). The vast majority of Al-Qaeda involvement has occurred since the fall of Bagdad. The State Department believes that the leader of Ansar al-Islam is Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, reported to be responsible for the Foley assassination in Jordan. al-Zarqawi apparently had a stay in a Baghdad hospital. That last sentence appears to be the sole connection between al-Qaeda and al-Islam.

Originally posted by rccar328Personally, I can't fathom why it's such a stretch to believe that a scumbag like Sadam Hussein was dealing (directly or indirectly) with a scumbag like Bin Laden - there are just too many hints to ignore.

Just because we want it to be true, which would justify everything, doesn't make it so.

Originally posted by rccar328They want to kill us because America is the world's leading exporter of culture. They want to kill us because of our movies, television, and music. They want to kill us because when they look at America, they see a country that was built on moral values, and they see that those moral values are not present in the majority of our society. This is why 9/11 happened.

I don't believe this is the sole reason. Nor do most experts that study the Middle East and Islamic history. Certainly Western values has a part in it, but I believe that the reasons have more to do with U.S. foreign policy going back as far as 1948 when the U.S. backed the Palestinian Partition Plan. In 1949 and 1953, the CIA was instrumental in overthrowing two Middle Eastern governments (Syria and Iran, respectively). In 1963 the U.S. supported the Baath party coup in Iraq, and later Saddam Hussein himself. This led to some of the most bloody conflicts the Middle East ever saw in the Iran-Iraq war.

In 1967, the UN Security Council Resolution 242 called for the Israeli withdraw of territories occupied by the 1967 war. The U.S. blocked any effort of the Security Council to enforce this. In 1973, we airlifted military aid to Israel, which was at war with Syria and Egypt.

The U.S. goes on to block UN Security Council efforts to condemn the Iran-Iraq war (Iraq, controlled by Saddam, invaded Iran) and uses its veto power to keep the council from condemning the invasion of Lebanon by Israel in 1982

In 1986, the U.S. bombed Libya, killing Qaddafi's daughter in retaliation for a nightclub bombing in Berlin, blaming Libya for the attack. It was probably true (as a side note, I was in Honduras, at the border of Nicaragua, counting bodies of Sandinista soldiers and their gear at the very moment of the bombing. 200 Sandinista soldiers chased a band of Contras across the border).

Now I'm not saying that some, most or all of the above actions weren't justified. Well… actually, I have my reservations about one or two. But the point is that Arabs in the Middle East are of the opinion that the United States wants to take over their oil. There are probably a couple dozen other foreign policy actions that I could name, but you get the idea. It's not just "Western values" or "moral depravity" that is at issue.

Sources

Boucher, Richard (2003). Ansar al-Islam Designated as Terrorist Group. U.S. Department of State. Found at: http://usinfo.state.gov/topical/pol/terror/03022001.htm on 2/6/04.

Katzman, Kenneth (2004). Iraq: U.S. Regime Change Efforts and Post-Saddam Governance. CRS Report for Congress found at: http://www.usembassy.it/pdf/other/RL31339.pdf on 2/6/04.

Nakhoul, Samia (2003). Bin Laden Labels Saddam an Infidel - Jazeera TV.Reuters. Tuesday, February 11, 2003.

Iraq in Retrospect

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Archived