Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,813 Year: 3,070/9,624 Month: 915/1,588 Week: 98/223 Day: 9/17 Hour: 5/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Tal's Iraq War: Blood for Oil, Oil for Food, Food for Thought
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 121 of 250 (176501)
01-13-2005 8:57 AM
Reply to: Message 120 by nator
01-13-2005 8:49 AM


Maybe you should find a FoxNEWS link to it, or a synopsis of its findings. I wonder if Fox did report its coming out?
In any case aren't you baffled by his ability to have access to all sorts of secret documents that none of us can see, yet can't seem to find or read the public documents handed or suggested to him?

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
"Don't believe I'm taken in by stories I have heard, I just read the Daily News and swear by every word.."(Steely Dan)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by nator, posted 01-13-2005 8:49 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by nator, posted 01-13-2005 11:08 PM Silent H has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 122 of 250 (176503)
01-13-2005 9:08 AM
Reply to: Message 118 by Tal
01-13-2005 2:35 AM


quote:
What did we know about Saddam right before we invaded?
He had stockpiles of WMD before.
Actually, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Bush all said that Hussein actually DID have stockpiles of WMD, and that they knew where they were, but that they couldn't tell us where. That turned out to be a lie.
Second, according to Blix and the weapons inspectors who were in Iraq right up to the invasion, those stockpiles had been destroyed.
quote:
He USED WMD on his own people before.
Right. That was back when the US was funding Hussein.
Also, there are many terrible dictators killing millions of their own people right now, most notably in Africa. Why aren't we invading them? I'll give you a hint. Those countries don't have the second largest reserve of a certain substance.
quote:
He invaded his neighboring country before.
...and showed to intent or ability to do so any time soon. Hussein didn't even control a large part of his own country, and hadn't for a long time, what makes you think he was an imminent threat to any of his neighbors?
Also, this was not the rationale for war that Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld used in the selling of the war before we invaded. It was only we invaded and did not find any WMD that the rationale for the war morphed into "saving the Iraqi people from a terrible dictator".
quote:
He fired SCUDS at 3 of his neighbors before.
...and did he have the ability to do it again? Wouldn't he have done so at the start of the invasion, at least at Israel, if he had had that capability?
quote:
He gave every indication that he still had WMD.
But the weapons inspectors were NOT FINDING ANY, and they were not allowed to continue doing their job because Bush and co wanted to invade.
quote:
He tap danced with the UN inspectors.
Then where are the WMD that Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld said were there and that they knew where they were? Why has almost every single claim about the WMD capability of pre-war Iraq made by the Bush admin. been shown to be not true by Bush's own CIA waepons team?
quote:
He violated 13 UN resolutions before.
So we should invade his country, unilaterally, when he is no threat to US soil?
Why couldn't we have managed Iraq the way we have managed Cuba?
quote:
There is a pattern there.
Sure there's a pattern, but this is no excuse for a unilateral invasion of a sovereign nation that has not harmed the US in any way.
quote:
Saddam could have proved that he had gotten rid of his WMD VERY EASILY, but he chose not to.
The inspections were working.
The inspections were ongoing and had to be stopped because Bush didn't want to wait to let the inspectors continue their work because he wanted to invade.
Now, we have not found the WMD that Bush, Cheney and Rumsfelt told us were there, and that they knew where they were.
Have you read the Congressional report on Iraq yet?
Here is the link:
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/serialset/creports/iraq.html
This message has been edited by schrafinator, 01-13-2005 09:13 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by Tal, posted 01-13-2005 2:35 AM Tal has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 123 of 250 (176508)
01-13-2005 9:32 AM


Search for WMD ends
FYI
BBC NEWS | World | Americas | US gives up search for Iraq WMD
By the looks of it there are no signs of even a significant WMD development program.

  
Primordial Egg
Inactive Member


Message 124 of 250 (176511)
01-13-2005 9:49 AM


Oil for food again
On the subject of the oil-for-food scandal, the FT has a very interesting article today "that the single-largest and boldest smuggling operation in the oil-for-food programme was conducted with the knowledge of the US government.
article
However, FT/Il Sole have evidence that US and UK missions to the UN were informed of the smuggling while it was happening and that they reported it to their respective governments, to no avail.
Oil traders were told informally that the US let the tankers go because Amman needed oil to build up its strategic reserves in expectation of the Iraq war.
Last week Paul Volcker, head of the independent commission created by the UN to investigate failures in the oil-for-food programme, confirmed that Washington allowed violations of the oil sanctions by Jordan in recognition of its national interests.
PE
This message has been edited by Primordial Egg, 01-13-2005 09:50 AM

  
Tal
Member (Idle past 5676 days)
Posts: 1140
From: Fort Bragg, NC
Joined: 12-29-2004


Message 125 of 250 (176527)
01-13-2005 11:21 AM
Reply to: Message 120 by nator
01-13-2005 8:49 AM


I'll have to reply to this when I get back. I can't open .pdf files here.
Alright then. We'll just have to agree to disagree. I do not concede that we only invaded Iraq for the oil. And, for the record, we will find the where the WMD went eventually. And once MI is done with the NBC intel that will come out in the wash too.

Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, "Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?" And I said, "Here am I. Send me!" Isaiah 6:8
No webpage found at provided URL: www.1st-vets.us

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by nator, posted 01-13-2005 8:49 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by nator, posted 01-13-2005 3:04 PM Tal has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 126 of 250 (176586)
01-13-2005 3:04 PM
Reply to: Message 125 by Tal
01-13-2005 11:21 AM


quote:
I'll have to reply to this when I get back. I can't open .pdf files here.
Let me know what specific information you want and I will iew the file and paste the relevant parts here for you.
quote:
Alright then. We'll just have to agree to disagree.
That's like agreeing to disagree that the sky is blue, tal.
You want me to let you go on thinking that it is green when the majority of available evidence indicates very strongly that the sky is blue.
quote:
I do not concede that we only invaded Iraq for the oil.
Of course, that's not the only thing I said.
What about the change in the Bush rationale for war? It went from "We know exactly where these major stockpiles of WMD are.", and "Iraq is an immediate threat to the US.", to "We need to save the Iraqi people from a terrible dictator and spread democracy."
quote:
And, for the record, we will find the where the WMD went eventually.
But where are the large stockpiles that Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfld said they KNEW WHERE THEY WERE?
They said they knew exactly where they were, tal, and they said that they were in Iraq. They are on record saying that.
Why didn't Hussein use them in the initial attack if he had them?
Did you read this article? Bold added by me.
MSN | Outlook, Office, Skype, Bing, Breaking News, and Latest Videos
The hunt for biological, chemical and nuclear weapons in Iraq has come to an end nearly two years after President Bush ordered U.S. troops to disarm Saddam Hussein. The top CIA weapons hunter is home, and analysts are back at Langley.
In interviews, officials who served with the Iraq Survey Group (ISG) said the violence in Iraq, coupled with a lack of new information, led them to fold up the effort shortly before Christmas.
Four months after Charles A. Duelfer, who led the weapons hunt in 2004, submitted an interim report to Congress that contradicted nearly every prewar assertion about Iraq made by top Bush administration officials, a senior intelligence official said the findings will stand as the ISG's final conclusions and will be published this spring.
This message has been edited by schrafinator, 01-13-2005 15:08 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by Tal, posted 01-13-2005 11:21 AM Tal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by Tal, posted 01-14-2005 12:28 AM nator has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 127 of 250 (176590)
01-13-2005 3:12 PM
Reply to: Message 113 by Jazzns
01-12-2005 4:24 PM


Re: Measure of Ignorance.
This is interesting but you are right that it needs it's own topic.
Go ahead and start one and I'll see you there.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by Jazzns, posted 01-12-2005 4:24 PM Jazzns has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 128 of 250 (176804)
01-13-2005 11:08 PM
Reply to: Message 121 by Silent H
01-13-2005 8:57 AM


quote:
Maybe you should find a FoxNEWS link to it, or a synopsis of its findings. I wonder if Fox did report its coming out?
I actually tried several different google searches to try to find a Fox News report of the congressional Iraq report, but to no avail.
quote:
In any case aren't you baffled by his ability to have access to all sorts of secret documents that none of us can see, yet can't seem to find or read the public documents handed or suggested to him?
LOL!
Yes, I find that pretty amusing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by Silent H, posted 01-13-2005 8:57 AM Silent H has not replied

  
Tal
Member (Idle past 5676 days)
Posts: 1140
From: Fort Bragg, NC
Joined: 12-29-2004


Message 129 of 250 (176840)
01-14-2005 12:28 AM
Reply to: Message 126 by nator
01-13-2005 3:04 PM


That's like agreeing to disagree that the sky is blue, tal.
You want me to let you go on thinking that it is green when the majority of available evidence indicates very strongly that the sky is blue.
You have formed your opinion based on the information you've seen and so have I. We are here to liberate the Iraqi people and let them rule themselves. A free, democratic Iraq is a huge defeat for terrorists and they know this (and have said it). That is why they are here fighting so hard.
Yes, I know the "hunt" is over. Do you expect the inspectors to go knock on insurgents' doors asking to inspect there house for WMD?

Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, "Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?" And I said, "Here am I. Send me!" Isaiah 6:8
No webpage found at provided URL: www.1st-vets.us

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by nator, posted 01-13-2005 3:04 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by Silent H, posted 01-14-2005 6:10 AM Tal has replied
 Message 133 by nator, posted 01-14-2005 9:48 AM Tal has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 130 of 250 (176893)
01-14-2005 6:10 AM
Reply to: Message 129 by Tal
01-14-2005 12:28 AM


We are here to liberate the Iraqi people and let them rule themselves. A free, democratic Iraq is a huge defeat for terrorists and they know this (and have said it). That is why they are here fighting so hard.
That was not the justification for the war. That is a massive social-engineering project which is anathema to republicans (or supposed to be).
Furthermore I have already asked you to explain the patently false claim that a democratic Iraq will help defeat terrorism. It is false on its face. I am unsure where you think "terrorists" have agreed with this assessment. You do know that not all Iraqi insurgents are terrorists, and not all terrorists are Iraqi insurgents.
You do understand that terrorists exist within democratic states, and that there is no reason to believe that a democratic Iraq will end terrorism?
Take this example. All Iraqi insurgents give up fighting and accept the new democratic gov't. That means that they will then all agree with the policies of Israel? Within Iraq no free people will decide to help terrorist organizations, or nonterrorist organizations fight Israel? How about helping organizations fight US interests within the region (like sabotaging oil or military targets that will hurt the US)?
Do you expect the inspectors to go knock on insurgents' doors asking to inspect there house for WMD?
Yes. And if that doesn't work, then to knock down the doors to get at the WMDs. I thought we were supposed to be worried about WMDs, now you say an insurgent's door being closed is supposed to stop us?
Funny how inspectors knocking on Hussein's doors again and again and again actually did work to contain WMDs. That is public knowledge now, get used to it.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
"Don't believe I'm taken in by stories I have heard, I just read the Daily News and swear by every word.."(Steely Dan)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by Tal, posted 01-14-2005 12:28 AM Tal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by Tal, posted 01-14-2005 7:19 AM Silent H has replied

  
Tal
Member (Idle past 5676 days)
Posts: 1140
From: Fort Bragg, NC
Joined: 12-29-2004


Message 131 of 250 (176898)
01-14-2005 7:19 AM
Reply to: Message 130 by Silent H
01-14-2005 6:10 AM


That was not the justification for the war.
There were many different justifications for the war.
1. To prevent the proliferation of WMD.
2. Iraq's Violation of U.N. resolutions.
3. Saddam's evil dictatorship and actions.
4. Lack of weapons inspections.
5. Al Qaeda and Iraqi links.
6. Iraq's Liberation.
7. Alter Geopolitical landscape of the middle east. (you'll note that Iran is now stuck between Iraq and a hard place *Afghanistan*...little pun there)
It's simply not about Oil. If you remember in 1991, when we had Kuwait flowing with our troops, and Iraq next door for the asking, not only did we leave Kuwait alone, but we pushed for a UN resolution that included holding Iraq responsible for any damage to Kuwaiti oilfields. We have a historical track record saying we wouldn't take advantage of such a situation!
How about another list?
1) Saddam is a wicked man capable of wicked things. Of this, even the doves agree. In the past 15 years, Saddam has either waged war or lobbed missiles at four of his neighbors (Iran, Saudi Arabia, Israel, and Kuwait) and used chemical weapons against his own civilians. He has authorized genocide against one of his ethnic minorities (the Kurds) and promoted a climate of fear and terror. Those who’ve fled his country tell horrible tales of widespread murder, corruption, rape, and torture. Saddam maintains power not through benevolence or good will, but through the brunt use of force. This alone might not be sufficient reason to wage war, but it’s important that we identify Saddam for what he isa brutal thug who does wicked, despicable things.
2) Inaction means Saddam acquires nuclear weapons. Again, this isn’t a debatable point; the only question is how long it will take. With sanctions, most experts believe the timeline is a matter of years without sanctions, perhaps by the end of the year. Acquiring nuclear weapons has long been a priority to Saddam’s regime and he was precariously close to ownership in the 1980s when an Israeli aerial attack knocked out an Iraqi nuclear development plant. With his amoral use of power and ability to coerce his scientists with threats of deathor death to their familythe top Iraqi minds are hoping to unleash the nuclear genie even while the pacifists are urging us to Give peace a chance.
3) Saddam acquiring nuclear weapons changes the dynamics in the Middle East. He has already demonstrated a willingness to use weapons of mass destruction when he believes it suits his purpose; a nuclear bomb would be just another tool in his arsenal. With it, he has cover to wage war and conquer his neighbors without repercussion. He could roll into Kuwait and conquer Saudi Arabia, telling the United States that any action on our part would result in a nuclear explosion in Tel Aviv. And with Saddam’s history, would any American president dare call his bluff? A nuclear Iraq is Saddam’s passport to a stranglehold on a lion’s share of the oil fields and a conquered Middle East.
4) Certain scenarios exist where it would be in Saddam’s interest to sell nuclear technology to unsavory entities, including terrorists. Iran, Jordan, Libya, and Syria would enjoy possession of nuclear weapons. In exchange for violating the U.N. sanctions, such a trade could be brokered. Furthermore, the major terrorist groups, including Al-Qaeda and Hamas, are extremely well funded with vast monetary resources at their disposaland Saddam needs money to fund his war plans and placate his Republican Guard military division. Saddam worked feverishly in recent years to strengthen his ties to Hamas, going as far as offering financial rewards to the families of homicide bombers. And Hamas returned the favor by pledging support to Saddam in the event of war. On January 10, 2003, Hamas leader Abdel Aziz Rantisi told his supporters, We urge the Iraqi leadership to open the door for Muslim volunteers who should perform their role in defense of Iraq because all Muslims are targeted by the USA. Saddam will assuredly reward his friends for their loyalty how he rewards them could pose a direct risk to the United States, her allies, and destabilize the entire region.
5) Nothing in Saddam’s past demonstrates that he’s content with Iraq’s borders as-is. Again, this point is beyond dispute. If past behavior is emblematic of future conduct, than we must assume that Iraq will invade his neighbors again. If it’s in our interests to prevent such a war from happening, we must decide if it’s better to attack him now, in a weaker state, or wait for Iraq to rebuild its military and gain nuclear defenses.
6) It’s in the interests of the United States to create a democratic, pro-Western Iraq. Beyond the obvious advantagesincluding access to oila democratic, prosperous Iraq is vital to our War on Terrorism. Islamic militants brainwash their young, instructing them that their economic misfortune if the fault of Christianity, America, Zionism, and our Western way of life. A rebuilt, prosperous Iraq in the heart of the Middle East would irrefutably demonstrate the folly of these inflammatory allegations. Freedom is a tricky thing; once let out of the bottle, it’s almost impossible to stifle. Right now the Arab countries in that region are either led by corrupt dictators or religious theologies. When the neighbors of Iraq see her prosper under a democratic, pro-Western government, they too will demand change. And they will recognize that their economic woes lay not at the feet of America, but with their own leadership. The War on Terrorism is largely a long-term battle for the hearts and minds of the Muslim youth. And we can’t win this war without proving the superiority of our way of lifeand the inferiority of corrupt, despotic governments and Islamic religious extremism.
7) Rebuilding Iraq is possible. Despite all the protests over nation-building, the historical truth is that it works. Japan, Italy, Germany, and much of Europe owes its current shape to American nation-building. Japan provides the best example. Back in the 1930s, Japan was a military force that invaded its neighbors, committed widespread human rights violationsincluding rape, torture, and murderall while operating under the extremist religious philosophy of Shintoism. So devoted were the Japanese to this religion that they embarked upon suicide missions against the United States, intentionally ramming their planes into American targets. And America responded in brutal fashion, deliberately targeting civilians with nuclear weapons. Upon the conclusion of World War II, the bad blood between the Japanese civilians and the United States was exponentially greater than any animosity between the people of Iraq and America. And still, nation-building worked because we successfully proved our superiority and invalidated the claims of our opponents. With American money and American resources, we’re capable of skyrocketing the Iraqi economy far beyond the heights it enjoyed back in 1989. And with lavish amounts of natural resources at its disposal and a secular past, Iraq is arguable better-equipped for rebuilding than the decimated, completely destroyed countries such as 1940s Germany, Japan, and Italy.
8) Saddam won’t leave power without a war. Most reasonable people would agree that it’s in our interest for Saddam to be removed from power and be replaced with a democratic, pro-Western leader. Because of his use of terror, it’s clear that the Iraqi people are incapable of removing their oppressor without foreign help. And even if Saddam is toppled by an assassin’s bullet, a strong probability exists that his replacement would be an Islamic extremist who’d transform Iraq into yet another Muslim theocracy with an anti-American tilt. A democratic Iraq won’t happen without our involvement. If it’s in our interest for the government of Iraq to change philosophically, we need to take an aggressive, proactive roll in actuating such change.
9) The same threats of terrorism will exist if we do nothing. Some like to argue that an American military campaign in Iraq would exasperate the Islamic fringe but these groups were and are already plotting the death and destruction of Americans worldwide. These same naysayers made these same allegations before we invaded Afghanistan and toppled the Taliban. These naysayers were wrong then and they’re wrong now. The terrorist threat won’t eliminate itself if we retreat from Iraq, as American foreign policy did not include an invasion of Baghdad prior to 9/11. The danger of inaction is greater than the danger of action, for hoping to appease these extremist won’t win their loyaltyit will only embolden their war plans.
10) Issues of morality. Morality often gets swept under the table in the pandering, appease-oriented world of foreign policy, particularly among the intellectual elites. Why? Because morality often serves as an impediment to negotiation, earning scoffs and derisions from international diplomats. But there is a legitimate issue of morality in this current conflict. Saddam is an evil butcher who’s terrorized his people for far too long and these people are simply incapable of defending themselves without our assistance. We have it within our power to provide the people of Iraq with freedom, liberty, and protection from a brutal government that orders torture, murder, and rape against opponents. We can protect an ethnic minority from genocide, giving these people a better tomorrow than they ever hoped possible. Edmund Burke once said, All that is necessary for the forces of evil to win in the world is for enough good men to do nothing. It is up to us to decide if we wish to utilize our power for good or to sit on the sidelines, allowing the innocent to suffer at the hands of a wicked tyrant. Apologists like to issue slippery-slope counterclaims: Saddam is no worse than Dictator X and we can’t save everyone! No, but we can provide safe haven when it’s in our national interest to do so, and such a case clearly exists in Iraq. And if the best you can say about Saddam is that someone somewhere might be worse, you still haven’t refuted those who label him as evil. The other slippery-slope talking point: Iraq isn’t the only ‘bad’ country with a nuclear programwhat about its Axis of Evil partners, Iran and North Korea? Do we invade them, too? The answer is, we treat Iraq differently than Iran and North Korea because it is different: Iran and North Korea haven’t invaded any sovereign nations in the past 30 years; in just the decade prior to the Gulf War, Iraq invaded Kuwait and Iran, fired missiles at Israel and Saudi Arabia, and massacred the Kurdish people with chemical weapons. Of these three countries, only Iraq has a history of utilizing weapons of mass destruction for offensive purposes. Despite the line-blurring of the relativists, Iraq is clearly a different animal than the othersa more dangerous animal.

Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, "Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?" And I said, "Here am I. Send me!" Isaiah 6:8
No webpage found at provided URL: www.1st-vets.us

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by Silent H, posted 01-14-2005 6:10 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by Silent H, posted 01-14-2005 8:38 AM Tal has replied
 Message 138 by FliesOnly, posted 01-14-2005 3:16 PM Tal has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 132 of 250 (176912)
01-14-2005 8:38 AM
Reply to: Message 131 by Tal
01-14-2005 7:19 AM


There were many different justifications for the war.
1. To prevent the proliferation of WMD.
2. Iraq's Violation of U.N. resolutions.
3. Saddam's evil dictatorship and actions.
4. Lack of weapons inspections.
5. Al Qaeda and Iraqi links.
6. Iraq's Liberation.
7. Alter Geopolitical landscape of the middle east.
The first and fifth were the main arguments for and what was used to push it. In addition they are the ONLY reasons that would make our action a preemptive invasion (remember that is what it was originally called).
#2,3,4,6,7 are not only NOT justifications for war, they violate international law. I would point at that #2 & 4 were not the case when we chose to invade. We ended UN investigation in order to attack.
Remember, your assertion is we did this as a last resort. Your points do not address last resort. Indeed they describe a wholly offensive venture to reshape the middle east according to our own desires.
It's simply not about Oil.
I agree. I have already added ideology to it. I will also point out that the OP of this thread is simply asking if you believe OFP there is no reason to doubt BFO theories. This tends to suggest that I am not wholly in the Blood for Oil theorist camp.
If you remember in 1991, when we had Kuwait flowing with our troops, and Iraq next door for the asking, not only did we leave Kuwait alone, but we pushed for a UN resolution that included holding Iraq responsible for any damage to Kuwaiti oilfields. We have a historical track record saying we wouldn't take advantage of such a situation!
If you remember in 1991, when we had freed Kuwait, instead of helping the Kuwaitis have a free and democratic nation we allowed their proUS theo-monarchy to return to power. How making Iraq pay for our friends' oil fields hardly suggests that we have nor interests in oil.
How about another list?
1) Saddam was a brutal thug. No reason to wage a war. So is Bush, not of the same cloth, but just as despicable.
2) Inaction did not mean that Iraq would have had nuclear weapons. Your idea that with sanctions he would have had them in a few years is merely your assertion. One might note that there were levels of things which could have been done besides and invasion to have ensured this.
3) Changing the dynamics of the midEast is simply not a valid defense unless you are desiring to go back in time to the feudal or colonial eras and might makes right. We had moved away from the destructiveness of that kind of thinking, until Bush entered office.
4) Hahaha... this is essentially only an extension of #1, but even more ridiculous. The very scenario you just outlined was actually done by our friend in Pakistan. Remember? What was the solution for that? A slap on the wrist for selling the tech and then announcing the guy is a national hero. What is the sound of one hand clapping?
5) Iraq's military was in disarray. He was going to rebuild it and become a threat? And we couldn't stop that? There's a long distance between no threat and imminent threat. We did not invade as a last resort and you just proved it.
6) Once democratic, Iraq will no longer have poverty? People will no longer be able to have radical conservative social views? Yet again you are proving this was not a last resort but a pie in the sky offensive military action to back a major social engineering program. You would not accept any other nation to invade others to reshape them according to their social theories... would you?
7) Rebuilding has worked. That does not mean it always works. Do you know the history of Iraq? Do you know the British tried to do the same thing their last century? Saddam was the inevitable result. Whoops. Hopefully it will be successful this time, especially as I have friends who have relatives there. However the potential to rebuild is not an argument for an invasion... is it?
8) Ever read the declaration of independence? It would refute your claims. On a practical note, you can't just invade and believe the result will be a shiny new democracy. Nations do not live by lawmaking procedure alone. Maybe it would be "best" in the theoretical sense that Hussein should be gone. But could it be worse to topple him? Yes it could. Most of teh world would agree that the US is better without Bush, would that make it right to invade? In any case, a truly democratic procedure would most likely leave Iraq with an Islamic conservative if not extremist leader. That is known and why we are not allowing them to have a truly democratic gov't, but rather a "representational" gov't as we see fit.
9) Do not try and tie Afghanistan to Iraq. Al-Queda was based in Afghanistan. AQ attacked us and was the largest security threat facing our interests. When the Taliban gov't in Afghanistan decided to protect AQ, we had every right and reason to invade. We then diverted supplies and money and talent from following AQ in order to invade Iraq which had not attacked us and was not posing an immediate security threat. Someone at EvC once posted a CIA map of AQ influence, there was one nation not on that map... Iraq. Ireland, Spain, and the US have terrorists in them as well. We cannot simply invade to get at "terrorists". It has to pass a common sense test of cost to benefit.
10) HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA... oh man that is great. Iran and NKorea have invaded other nations, though the latter was more than 30 years ago... so what? Iraq was supported an called moral by us as it warred with Iran, and gassed the Kurds in the north. Do you not know this? It is the absolute height of hypocrisy to claim that Hussein was horrible for gassing Kurds and then pretend we have no complicity in that act. I might add that we have just invaded a nation that most nations of the world have opposed, and we treat our own citizens inhumanely. Does that give nations that feel more moral than us, the RIGHT to invade in order to topple Bush? Does that mean they SHOULD invade?
Oh man, thanks for a good laugh.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
"Don't believe I'm taken in by stories I have heard, I just read the Daily News and swear by every word.."(Steely Dan)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by Tal, posted 01-14-2005 7:19 AM Tal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by Tal, posted 01-14-2005 9:58 AM Silent H has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 133 of 250 (176940)
01-14-2005 9:48 AM
Reply to: Message 129 by Tal
01-14-2005 12:28 AM


Tal, did you read this article?
What do you say to the bolded parts below?
MSN | Outlook, Office, Skype, Bing, Breaking News, and Latest Videos
Four months after Charles A. Duelfer, who led the weapons hunt in 2004, submitted an interim report to Congress that contradicted nearly every prewar assertion about Iraq made by top Bush administration officials, a senior intelligence official said the findings will stand as the ISG's final conclusions and will be published this spring.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by Tal, posted 01-14-2005 12:28 AM Tal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by Tal, posted 01-14-2005 10:00 AM nator has not replied

  
Tal
Member (Idle past 5676 days)
Posts: 1140
From: Fort Bragg, NC
Joined: 12-29-2004


Message 134 of 250 (176945)
01-14-2005 9:58 AM
Reply to: Message 132 by Silent H
01-14-2005 8:38 AM


1) Saddam was a brutal thug. No reason to wage a war. So is Bush, not of the same cloth, but just as despicable.
Yeah. When was the last time Bush used nerve agent on the US populace?
#2,3,4,6,7 are not only NOT justifications for war, they violate international law. I would point at that #2 & 4 were not the case when we chose to invade. We ended UN investigation in order to attack.
No, but all of those combined makes it pretty clear, except to France, Russian, and Germany.
Remember, your assertion is we did this as a last resort. Your points do not address last resort. Indeed they describe a wholly offensive venture to reshape the middle east according to our own desires.
Let's look at the timeline shall we?
Jan. 29, 2002- In Pres. George W. Bush's State of the Union speech, he identifies Iraq , along with Iran and North Korea , as an axis of evil. He vows that the United States will not permit the world's most dangerous regimes to threaten us with the world's most destructive weapons.
April 20, 2002- Stop the War at Home and Abroad, a coordinated protest of all major coalitions against the broad and destructive war in Afghanistan , draws 75,000 to 120,000 in Washington , D.C.
May 14, 2002- The UN Security Council revamps the 11-year-old sanctions against Iraq , introducing a new set of procedures for processing contracts for humanitarian supplies and equipment. At this time, the United States is preventing $5 billion of material from entering Iraq through holds by the sanctions committee.
Sept. 12, 2002- President Bush addresses the opening of the UN General Assembly, challenging the body to confront the grave and gathering danger of Iraq or become irrelevant.
Sept. 17, 2002- President Bush releases his administration's National Security Strategy, outlining a more militarized policy relying on first strikes. It says the United States will exploit its military and economic power to encourage free and open societies. It emphasizes that the United States will never allow its military supremacy to be challenged, as it was during the Cold War.
Oct. 10, 2002- Congress adopts a joint resolution authorizing use of force against Iraq and gives the president authority to take preemptive, unilateral military action against Iraq , when and how he deems necessary. The bill is opposed by 133 representatives and 23 senators.
Nov. 8, 2002- The UN Security Council unanimously approves Resolution 1441, imposing tough new arms inspections on Iraq and precise, unambiguous definitions of what constitutes a material breach. Should Iraq violate the resolution, it faces serious consequences, which the Security Council would determine.
Nov. 27, 2002- Weapons inspections resume in Iraq under supervision of the International Atomic Energy Agency and UN experts.
Dec. 7, 2002- Iraq submits a 12,000-page declaration on its chemical, biological, and nuclear activities, claiming it has no banned weapons.
Dec. 10, 2002- International Human Rights Day, commemorated by more than 150 U.S. cities with action, rallies, and vigils opposing war against Iraq. One theme is, Let the inspectors work.
Dec. 21, 2002- President Bush approves the deployment of U.S. troops to the Gulf region. It is estimated that by March, 200,000 troops will be stationed there. British and Australian troops will join them in the coming months.
Jan. 27, 2003- The UN Weapons Inspectors' formal report on Iraq is critical, though not damning. Chief UN Weapons Inspector Hans Blix states, Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance, not even today, of the disarmament that was demanded of it.
Jan. 27, 2003- Bush receives a letter signed by 130 members of the House of Representatives, urging him to let the inspectors work.
Jan. 28, 2003- In his state of the union address, President Bush states Saddam Hussein is not disarming. To the contrary, he is deceiving. He goes on to claim that the Iraqi leader has shown utter contempt for the United Nations and the opinion of the world. He announces he is ready to attack Iraq , even without a UN mandate.
Feb. 14, 2003- In a report to the UN, Hans Blix indicates progress has been made in Iraq's cooperation. Both pro-war and anti-war nations feel the report supports their point of view.
Feb. 15, 2003- The World Says No to War, with massive peace demonstrations around the world, is the largest coordinated day of protest in world history, with more than 600 cities participating.
Feb. 22, 2003- Hans Blix orders Iraq to destroy its Al Samoud 2 missiles by March 1 because the UN inspectors have determined the missiles have an illegal range limit.
Feb. 24, 2003- The United States , Great Britain , and Spain submit a proposed resolution to the UN Security Council stating, Iraq has failed to take the final opportunity afforded to it in Resolution 1441. The resolution concludes it is time to authorize use of military force. France , Germany , and Russia submit an informal counter-resolution, stating that inspections should be intensified and extended to ensure there is a real chance for the peaceful settlement of this crisis and that the military option should only be a last resort.
March 1, 2003- Iraq begins destroying its Al Samoud missiles.
March 7, 2003- Hans Blix reports Iraq has accelerated its cooperation, but inspectors need more time to verify Iraq's compliance.
March 12, 2003- New York City passes a city council resolution opposing a preemptive/unilateral war against Iraq , joining more than 150 other U.S. cities, including Philadelphia , Chicago , and Los Angeles. We, of all cities, must uphold the preciousness and sanctity of human life, says Councilman Alan Gerson, a Democrat whose district includes the World Trade Center site, where 2,792 people were killed on Sept. 11, 2001.
Feb. 24—March 14, 2003- The United States and Great Britain's intense lobbying efforts among UN Security Council members yields support only from Spain and Bulgaria. Since nine votes (and no vetoes from the five permanent members) out of fifteen are required for the resolution's passage, the United States decides not to call for a vote on the resolution.
March 17, 2003- Great Britain's ambassador to the UN says the diplomatic process on Iraq has ended. Arms inspectors evacuate. Pres. George W. Bush gives Saddam Hussein and his sons 48 hours to leave Iraq or face war.
March 19, 2003- Invasion of Iraq begins when the United States launches Operation Iraqi Freedom. Called a decapitation attack, the initial air strike of the war targets Saddam Hussein and other Iraqi leaders in Baghdad , with unclear results.
We put Saddam on notice Jan 02. We finally took action in Mar 03. Why? It can be summed up quite simply by quoting Mr. Blix.
The UN Weapons Inspectors' formal report on Iraq is critical, though not damning. Chief UN Weapons Inspector Hans Blix states, Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance, not even today, of the disarmament that was demanded of it.
If Saddam had wanted to avoid all of this it would have been VERY EASY for him to simply lay it all out and provide proof of where the WMD went. I might add that the timeline is from an "anti-war" site, as you will note from some of the dates.
Now, my question is this. What nation in history has ever declared that it would invade unless X demands were met; waited 14 months, using diplomacy the whole time, before it attacked said nation?
And from Factmonster...
91 - UN weapons inspectors report that Iraq has concealed much of its nuclear and chemical weapons programs. It is the first of many such reports over the next decade, pointing out Iraq's thwarting of the UN weapons inspectors (July 30).
Ah, so Iraq has concealed much of the WMD eh?
Fast forward to 97
The UN disarmament commission concludes that Iraq has continued to conceal information on biological and chemical weapons and missiles (Oct 23).
Iraq expelexpelsAmerican members of the UN inspection team (Nov. 13).
6 years and it still continues to conceal the info on WMD?
98
Saddam Hussein puts a complete halt to the inspections (Oct. 31). Iraq agrees to unconditional cooperation with the UN inspectors (Nov. 14), but by a month later, chief UN weapons inspector Richard Butler reports that Iraq has not lived up to its promise (Dec. 15).
Seems to a pattern there?

Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, "Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?" And I said, "Here am I. Send me!" Isaiah 6:8
No webpage found at provided URL: www.1st-vets.us

This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by Silent H, posted 01-14-2005 8:38 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by Silent H, posted 01-14-2005 11:54 AM Tal has replied
 Message 137 by Loudmouth, posted 01-14-2005 12:09 PM Tal has replied

  
Tal
Member (Idle past 5676 days)
Posts: 1140
From: Fort Bragg, NC
Joined: 12-29-2004


Message 135 of 250 (176947)
01-14-2005 10:00 AM
Reply to: Message 133 by nator
01-14-2005 9:48 AM


That was in regards to WMD.
I will reply to your post with post 179 also.

Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, "Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?" And I said, "Here am I. Send me!" Isaiah 6:8
No webpage found at provided URL: www.1st-vets.us

This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by nator, posted 01-14-2005 9:48 AM nator has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024