You don't go back for check ups after all the teeth have been pulled though Walter.
0 Replies
Lightwizard
1
Reply
Sat 10 Jul, 2004 11:14 am
Granted the suspicions of Sadaam still having WMD were valid, but they were only suspicions turned into something concrete. I'm not certain the dentist metaphor works. Teeth are not WMD. However, even if one has dentures, they still visit the dentist. That he actually did possess WMD is now becoming an obvious concoction of very flimsy evidence by the CIA. I don't like trying to believe politicians 'cause I know they are so often full of it but in this case the misconceptions were purveyed with purpose and full of holes. Bush quite simply should have asked to see all the details of the evidence and not just take Tenet's word for it. Very poor judgement IMHO.
0 Replies
timberlandko
1
Reply
Sat 10 Jul, 2004 11:19 am
Denied their governmentally protected haven in Afghanistan, members of al Queda, of the Taliban, and of assorted inter-related jihadist groups began migrating to Iraq, where not only did they participate in the initial resistance to the March '03 attack, but have continued to be central elements of the insurgency. That's good enough for me.
0 Replies
the reincarnation of suzy
1
Reply
Sat 10 Jul, 2004 11:28 am
Gee, there were a whole bunch of those guys in Saudi Arabia, too. Hey, wait a minute, weren't 19 of the terrorists FROM Saudi Arabia? Yes, it's all clear now, that damned Iraq! That's enough evidence for me, bomb Iraq! Those instigators!
0 Replies
McTag
1
Reply
Sat 10 Jul, 2004 11:34 am
Foxfyre wrote:
Iraq was attacked because it was, in the opinion of the U.S. and the U.K., the next logical target in the war against terrorism. The belief at the time was that Saddam Hussein harbored and financed terrorists, and that he himself supported and participated in terrorism. And it was believed, by most, that he possessed and given a chance would use WMD. That is why Iraq was attacked.
If you believe that, you've not been paying attention.
0 Replies
timberlandko
1
Reply
Sat 10 Jul, 2004 12:23 pm
I happen to think that if one pays attention to the Big Picture, McT, one has no choice but to believe eliminating Iraq as a haven for terrorists, a regional destabilizing influence, and the source of a gathering, if not yet realized and imminent, threat to global security, both economic and political, was a needful, next-logical step.
0 Replies
Lightwizard
1
Reply
Sat 10 Jul, 2004 12:48 pm
Iraq is a small patch of land on Earth and wasn't a haven for al-Queda or other terrorist organizations until we invaded. Iran very likely is harboring al-Queda as well as several other countries we've made enemies of or, at least, have not been satisfied as to our intent and are making a half-hearted attempt at curbing terrorists training camps and other activities. Iraq was the only destabilizing state in the Middle East? This is too obviously a personal vendetta and the flimsy evidence is being rationalized by the cock crowing, "Look, I got rid of Sadaam." I think he actually opened the door to the terrorists who want to prove themselves out. I think he had no idea what chances he was taking. I would not stake him in Vegas.
0 Replies
cicerone imposter
1
Reply
Sat 10 Jul, 2004 01:07 pm
Fox's quote, "Iraq was attacked because it was, in the opinion of the U.S. and the U.K., the next logical target in the war against terrorism." You guys keep repeating the same thing over and over, and ignore the truth which is "we attacked Iraq because the claims made by Bush and company that Saddam had WMDs." Not because of "a war on terrorism." If that was the reason, Bush and company failed miserably, because terrorism INCREASED since our preemptive attack on Iraq.
0 Replies
timberlandko
1
Reply
Sat 10 Jul, 2004 01:11 pm
I don't think I'd front him table money either, LW, but generally I just don't do that for anybody :wink:
I just don't buy the "personal vendetta" thing, or the personal enrichment thing. I know some find those appealing. I find such notions wholly disingenuous and ignorant of realpolitik. That just ain't the way theings work out there in The Big World. They well may be ancillary considerations, I won't deny that, but the aren't primary motivators of geopolitical action. The US hasn't seen a "Popular War" since Teddy Roosevelt was a self-made Colonel. Military intervention is one of, perhaps specifically even singularly, the riskiest, most unpopular endeavors a President can undertake, and as such is not undertaken lightly.
0 Replies
Foxfyre
1
Reply
Sat 10 Jul, 2004 01:15 pm
I wonder why C.I. doesn't make the connection that WMD is a valid point in the War against Terrorism, especially when they are in the hands of terrorists?
0 Replies
cicerone imposter
1
Reply
Sat 10 Jul, 2004 01:21 pm
BUT, there is NO WMDs in Iraq. You're following Bush's rhetoric - that Saddam had the potential to build WMDs. Well, guess what? Everybody has the potential to build WMDs. Maybe that's too difficult a concept for you to understand.
0 Replies
timberlandko
1
Reply
Sat 10 Jul, 2004 01:22 pm
c.i. , I'll point out the number and severity of attacks and counteractions involving both Japan and Germany increased dramatically following 12/7/1941. We're at war, and the enemy, pressured but undefeated, is fighting back.
I'll point out too that despite the media spin, the causus beli re Iraq was not Iraq's possession of WMD, but Iraqs defiance of demands Iraq clearly and unambiguously document and prove divestiture of known proscribed assets and capabilities, along with other direct violations of The Safwan Accords and a related string of Chapter VII UNSC Resolutions. Had Saddam not persisted in defiance and obstruction, there neither would nor could have been an attack.
0 Replies
cicerone imposter
1
Reply
Sat 10 Jul, 2004 01:23 pm
timber, Give me a break! We're talking about Bush and Iraq.
0 Replies
Foxfyre
1
Reply
Sat 10 Jul, 2004 01:29 pm
And, at the time we invaded Iraq, Bush believed what (almost) everybody else did, including those who voted not to go to war with Iraq, that Saddam had WMD. I again will refer you to the William Raspberry column: "We Didn't Dare Wait". It is posted elsewhere here on A2K or you can google Raspberry and get it. It explains it quite clearly.
If we had the luxury of making all decisions based on hindsight, you would have a valid argument C.I. But, as we all do, the President has to make decisions based on the information available to him at the time the decision is made.
0 Replies
Lightwizard
1
Reply
Sat 10 Jul, 2004 01:52 pm
timber, I don't necessarily believe the personal enrichment which you just brought up (I didn't). I do believe he had a fixation and an agenda based on considerations of his personal family. For one thing, sons are known to want to one-up their fathers.
0 Replies
Lightwizard
1
Reply
Sat 10 Jul, 2004 01:53 pm
The truth is there are still places terrorists can obtain WMD and we attacked a country that wasn't one of them.
0 Replies
cicerone imposter
1
Reply
Sat 10 Jul, 2004 02:09 pm
Most of the people in this world knows which countires has WMDs, and some are probably potential distributors, and it's not Iraq - and never was.
ONE DAY the historians will look back on Washington's war against a smaller, weaker and less well-armed foe and write things that might be unpalatable to many American patriots and those in Canada and elsewhere who support them.
They will say all sorts of things. And many of them will be true.
They will, for instance, point out that the Republicans only won the election before the war after a very low turnout of the electorate and that there were allegations of corruption and tampering. They will explain that the U.S. president was very unpopular in many circles and that many in the press wrote against him week after week.
They will question the motives for the war, insisting that various business interests made profits out of the invasion and occupation. They will say that the reasons the president and his advisers gave for the war turned out to be doubtful if not absolutely untrue and that it was all an excuse to bludgeon this smaller country into submission and a new way of life.
They will say that the war was immoral and that the victorious American forces acted not as liberators but as oppressors. They will write that the local population resented the Yankees and that bands of armed men roared around the country killing Americans, murdering locals who collaborated with them and trying to destroy the new infrastructure of the state.
They will show that many Democrats were in favour of peace and campaigned before and during the war for all hostilities to cease. They will show that some of the more radical members of the Democratic Party even called the president and his Republicans a group of traitors and baby-killers.
They will paint horrific pictures of violent demonstrations in the United States against the war by those who thought it unethical and illegal, and talk of how some of those called to fight resisted and faced arrest and trial for their actions. They will describe how some lawyers tried to litigate against the war and even took their case to foreign governments so as to gain sympathy.
They will tell us that many of those who served in the U.S. military and fought and died were motivated as much by poverty as by patriotism and that some of them, frankly, didn't even know what the war was about. They will show that on occasion raw nationalism took the place of sober reflection.
They will say that the president and commander-in-chief was too motivated by his religious beliefs and that he read the Bible too often. As a result he actually thought he had God on his side and that the conflict was one between good and evil -- one that had to be won if people were to be free and equal.
They will give examples of the brutal treatment of some enemy prisoners by the Americans and say that this destroyed the entire moral argument for waging the war in the first place. They will write of camps where captured men were humiliated and denied their basic human rights as prisoners of war.
They will say that some of the new rulers of the conquered state were not universally liked by the rest of the population. They may have been local but they did not represent all of the people and were thought by some to be outsiders. They were also imposed on the masses by the Americans and needed American support to keep them in power.
They will tell us that the people and governments of many countries condemned the war and said that the Americans were barbarians. They will record how there were enormous protests against American policy, and Americans, in foreign cities and that some of them were ugly and violent.
They will say all of this -- at least, they would, but there's no need.
Because they already have. I speak not of Iraq but of the American Civil War.
The president, of course, was Abraham Lincoln. The cause was the preservation and integrity of the United States and the emancipation of people of colour. It was a war for freedom, dignity and the rule of law. A war that had to be fought.
I'd like to see the usual suspects make an argument against it.
But then, almost a century and a half ago, the usual suspects did.
0 Replies
ican711nm
1
Reply
Sat 10 Jul, 2004 04:14 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
Fox's quote, "Iraq was attacked because it was, in the opinion of the U.S. and the U.K., the next logical target in the war against terrorism." You guys keep repeating the same thing over and over, and ignore the truth which is "we attacked Iraq because the claims made by Bush and company that Saddam had WMDs." Not because of "a war on terrorism." If that was the reason, Bush and company failed miserably, because terrorism INCREASED since our preemptive attack on Iraq.
WORLDWIDE INCREASE IN TERRORISM? YES!
DOMESTIC INCREASE IN TERROISM? NO! SO FAR SINCE 9/11 IT'S ZERO.
