Why We Fought

candidone--

Considering the raping the British Empire has perpetrated on the world, don't you think we should bomb them? I mean, they really have it coming.

And the Arabs. They have assaulted the world with cowardly violence, and they teach their children to hate in state sponsered schools. We should bomb them. I'm sure you'll support it.

Does your sense of payback only apply to the US?

You don't have to choose between angelic or deserving of an attack.

We sow more good than bad. And, even the realpolitik snafus weren't much more than ill-placed chesspieces in that interminable game with the Soviets. Our nation was under the impression that we were a better alternative than forced Communism. I think we were right. If you disagree, there is still Cuba.

0 Replies

candidone1 wrote:

Lash wrote:

But, fighting terrorism--to me, was a good enough reason.

Fair enough Lash.
...and I agree.

"Fighting terrorism", however, has taken on a very ugly persona considering who the leaders are leading the "good fight".
*Abu Gharib
Abu Ghraib was the act of some misguided people. No nation is responsible for every action of every citizen.
*The Patriot Act
It has stopped other attacks. It was necessary. The US is expected to stop other attacks, but you expect them to do it with no powers...? Obviously, the past powers were not adequate.
*Racial Profiling
If the overwhelming majority of the terrorists were the same sex and ethnicity, it would be psychotic not to take that into consideration.
*Guantanamo Bay and all that comes with it
Guantanamo was a good idea. We were housing and questioning terrorists. They don't deserve the rights American citizens have. They were attacking American citizens, with a goal of overthrowing our government.

...not to mention perhaps an anti-Arab psycho-social consciousness that I am waiting to see emerge (maybe, maybe not); one of a culture of fear that the post 9-11 generation youths will carry with them into their adult years.
It is the Arab fundy, backwater mentality that has created a culture of fear. I don't think Americans are afraid. I am pretty sure the 911 generation feels pretty secure in Republican leadership during crisis..

0 Replies

Here is a note of optimism of why we fought:

http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20050324-075950-3772r.htm

0 Replies

rayban--

That was wonderful!

0 Replies

Thanks Lash

I just posted another in ME history thread above by Victor Davis Hanson. He is mostly positive about events in the ME which to me is refreshing. I've had a gulletful of pessimism and defeatism.

0 Replies

So have an increasing majority of Americans...

<smiling>

0 Replies

Re: Why We Fought

Clifford D. May, as quoted by McGentrix wrote:

Two years ago this week, the American invasion of Iraq was underway. Why had we gone to war? In the months leading up to Operation Iraqi Freedom, President Bush repeatedly gave his reasons.

Indeed he did:

Bush Recasts Rationale For War After Report[/size]
(Washington Post, 10/10/04, registration required)

In announcing 19 months ago that the United States was poised to invade Iraq, President Bush told the nation: "Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised. . . . The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder."

Bush's decision to attack Iraq came after urgent warnings by the president and his top aides about the challenge posed by Iraq -- what Bush called "a serious and mounting threat to our country" in his Jan. 28, 2003, State of the Union address before Congress. Few lawmakers questioned these warnings -- Sen. John F. Kerry, now the Democratic presidential nominee, did not -- and many frequently echoed them.

But the argument that the United States faced a moment of maximum peril in early 2003 from Iraq has been greatly weakened by the release last week of the comprehensive report of chief U.S. weapons inspector Charles A. Duelfer. The report found that the 1991 Persian Gulf War and subsequent U.N. inspections destroyed Iraq's illicit weapons capability, leaving it without any chemical, biological or nuclear weapons. Saddam Hussein hoped to someday resume his weapons efforts, the report said, but for the most part there had been no serious effort to rebuild the programs.

In the wake of the report, President Bush has reframed the way he characterizes his rationale for the launching the war. A review of his public statements before the war and this week shows how broadly his public argument has shifted, away from warnings that Hussein actually possessed horrible weapons in favor of talking almost exclusively about the dictator's intent.

This week, Bush said Iraq had been a "unique threat" and the United States was justified in attacking, largely because Hussein "retained the knowledge, the materials, the means, and the intent to produce weapons of mass destruction."

"And he could have passed that knowledge on to our terrorist enemies," the president told reporters.

In the months leading up to the war, however, Bush and other administration officials made serious and specific allegations about Iraqi capabilities in biological, chemical and nuclear warfare:

"Saddam Hussein [has] biological weapons sufficient to produce over 25,000 liters of anthrax -- enough doses to kill several million people," Bush said in his 2003 State of the Union address. He also cited reports that Iraq had "materials sufficient to produce more than 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin -- enough to subject millions of people to death by respiratory failure."

"Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent; in such quantities, these chemical agents could also kill untold thousands," Bush continued. He also said Hussein had "upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents," and "several mobile biological weapons labs."

Bush asserted that if Hussein obtained key nuclear material, he could produce a bomb within a year.

A CIA report released by the administration in October 2002 said: "Since inspections ended in 1998, Iraq has maintained its chemical weapons effort, energized its missile program, and invested more heavily in biological weapons; most analysts assess Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program."

The CIA also said Iraq "has begun renewed production of chemical warfare agents, probably including mustard, sarin, cyclosarin, and VX." It said "all key aspects" of Iraq's biological weapons program "are active and most elements are larger and more advanced than they were before the Gulf War." The report said Iraq was developing drones likely "intended to deliver biological warfare agents."

Kerry, while raising questions about the administration's approach, said in an Oct. 9, 2002, Senate floor speech -- when he voted to give Bush authorization to conduct a war -- that it was clear that Hussein had "continued his quest for weapons of mass destruction" in the past four years.

"We will not be blackmailed or extorted by these weapons, and we will not permit the United Nations -- an institution we have worked hard to nurture and create -- to simply be ignored by this dictator," Kerry said.

All these assertions were disproved or rejected by the Duelfer report. Not only did Duelfer say Iraq had no weapons, but he said Hussein was interested in acquiring weapons because Iran, Iraq's longtime enemy, had its own weapons programs -- not because it wished to attack the United States.

Duelfer said that before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, the sanctions on Iraq were eroding and that Hussein hoped to rebuild his programs if those sanctions were ever lifted. But the appetite for lifting the sanctions evaporated in the U.N. Security Council after Sept. 11, 2001, and Duelfer said Hussein had no formal written strategy or plan for restarting his programs.

White House officials said not attacking would have only delayed the inevitable. "The Duelfer report shows a clear choice: either remove Saddam when we did or fight him in the very near future, when he bribed enough others to bring down the sanctions and restart his WMD," Jim Wilkinson, deputy national security adviser, said.

The United States is still suffering from the diplomatic consequences of launching a war without explicit support from the U.N. Security Council. France had threatened a veto, but many smaller countries on the council also rejected a resolution authorizing force after the Bush administration refused to consider waiting a few more months -- or even weeks -- to give U.N. inspectors more time to assess whether Iraq still possessed banned weapons.

"This is a matter of weeks, not months," Bush had insisted six weeks before the attack was launched.

The result is that many countries that provided troops in the first Gulf War -- such as Canada, France, Germany, Pakistan and Syria -- refused to provide help either during this war or in its troublesome aftermath. A book published in France last week said France had been willing to commit as many as 15,000 troops, though a French official said the offer was contingent on the Security Council approving a resolution authorizing war after determining that Iraq had committed a "material breach" during the inspection process.

While the Duelfer report said that the prospect of Iraq escaping the sanctions faded after the Sept. 11 attacks, Bush took the opposite lesson.

Before Sept. 11 , "we were trying to fashion a sanction regime that would make it more likely to be able to contain somebody like Saddam Hussein," Bush told reporters on Jan. 31, 2003. "After September the 11th, the doctrine of containment just doesn't hold any water, as far as I'm concerned. . . . The strategic vision of our country shifted dramatically, and it shifted dramatically because we now recognize that oceans no longer protect us, that we're vulnerable to attack."

0 Replies

Re: Why We Fought
joefromchicago...I'm picking up what you're laying down....

0 Replies

rayban1 wrote:

Thanks Lash

I just posted another in ME history thread above by Victor Davis Hanson. He is mostly positive about events in the ME which to me is refreshing. I've had a gulletful of pessimism and defeatism.

That being said....thank you Lash for your comments, and rayban for the above link.
Just because I opposed Bush's justification(s) for the war, doesn't mean I hope he fails, nor do I deny any good is taking place.
It is and will continue to be a volitile region--we can expect more good and more bad in the future.

0 Replies

Lash wrote:

candidone1 wrote:
Lash wrote:

But, fighting terrorism--to me, was a good enough reason.

Fair enough Lash.
...and I agree.

"Fighting terrorism", however, has taken on a very ugly persona considering who the leaders are leading the "good fight".
*Abu Gharib
Abu Ghraib was the act of some misguided people. No nation is responsible for every action of every citizen.
Misguided Americans, and considering "America" cries for their fallen soldiers, and "America" stands behind them in all they do, the onus falls somewhere upon the stars and stripes. Like it or not, it was a shadow cast upon the American flag.

*The Patriot Act
It has stopped other attacks. It was necessary. The US is expected to stop other attacks, but you expect them to do it with no powers...? Obviously, the past powers were not adequate.
The Patriot Act stopped other attacks?
Explain.

*Racial Profiling
If the overwhelming majority of the terrorists were the same sex and ethnicity, it would be psychotic not to take that into consideration.
There are other methods.
Blacks and Hispanics represent the majority of prison inmates in America...and we have seen incidences revealing racial profiling as simply racism...not a psychotic episode in it's absence. The necessity of racial profiling has been contrived.

*Guantanamo Bay and all that comes with it
Guantanamo was a good idea. We were housing and questioning terrorists. They don't deserve the rights American citizens have. They were attacking American citizens, with a goal of overthrowing our government.
One minor qualification: accused or suspected terrorists have been detained above and beyond any conceivable legal realm.
Unless this is a purely utilitarian approach to combating terrorism, why have so many of these suspects been released after years of detention without charge?

...not to mention perhaps an anti-Arab psycho-social consciousness that I am waiting to see emerge (maybe, maybe not); one of a culture of fear that the post 9-11 generation youths will carry with them into their adult years.
It is the Arab fundy, backwater mentality that has created a culture of fear. I don't think Americans are afraid. I am pretty sure the 911 generation feels pretty secure in Republican leadership during crisis.Respectfully, I disagree that Americans are not afraid...especially in some ultra-conservative everyone's out to get us circles..

0 Replies

An awful lotta folks have an awful lot to say about this. I can't help thinkin' most of the folks who do most of the talkin' aboutit have never read this. Just for reference, here it is - the real deal on "Why we fought" - as a matter of Public Law and Open Record.

Quote:

Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq

Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq's war of aggression against and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the national security of the United States and enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;

Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism;

Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;

Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;

Whereas in 1998 Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in "material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations" and urged the President "to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations" (Public Law 105-235);

Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolutions of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;

Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;

Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of American citizens;

Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001 underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself;

Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687, repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688, and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949;

Whereas Congress in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) has authorized the President "to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolutions 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677";

Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it "supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1)," that Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and "constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region," and that Congress, "supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688";

Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;

Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United States to "work with the United Nations Security Council to meet our common challenge" posed by Iraq and to "work for the necessary resolutions," while also making clear that "the Security Council resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and security will be met, or action will be unavoidable";

Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary;

Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001 or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and

Whereas it is in the national security of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region;

Now, therefore, be it resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SEC. 1. SHORT TITLE.

This joint resolution may be cited as the "Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq".

SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS

The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to--

(a) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions applicable to Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and

(b) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions.

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) AUTHORIZATION. The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq.

(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION.

In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon there after as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq, and

(2) acting pursuant to this resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorists attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

(c) WAR POWERS RESOLUTION REQUIREMENTS. --

(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION. -- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.
(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS. -- Nothing in this resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

SEC. 4. REPORTS TO CONGRESS

(a) The President shall, at least once every 60 days, submit to the Congress a report on matters relevant to this joint resolution, including actions taken pursuant to the exercise of authority granted in section 2 and the status of planning for efforts that are expected to be required after such actions are completed, including those actions described in section 7 of Public Law 105-338 (the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998).

(b) To the extent that the submission of any report described in subsection (a) coincides with the submission of any other report on matters relevant to this joint resolution otherwise required to be submitted to Congress pursuant to the reporting requirements of Public Law 93-148 (the War Powers Resolution), all such reports may be submitted as a single consolidated report to the Congress.

(c) To the extent that the information required by section 3 of Public Law 102-1 is included in the report required by this section, such report shall be considered as meeting the requirements of section 3 of Public Law 102-1.

0 Replies

timberlandko wrote:

An awful lotta folks have an awful lot to say about this. I can't help thinkin' most of the folks who do most of the talkin' aboutit have never read this. Just for reference, here it is - the real deal on "Why we fought" - as a matter of Public Law and Open Record.

An awful lotta folks has been talkin a whol lotta stuff that ain't been the same stuff as the stuff in that there public law and open record document.
Just like his Dad before him, I was busy makin' certain that I was watchin his lips when he spoked about why he was gonna blow up that there Iraqi place.
Like his Daddy changed his mind, so did little George.
A few times.

I'll put this one with the others cause it's so nicely written.

0 Replies

Its all perception, I guess. Can't see that anything otherr than that which was authorized has been done.

0 Replies

Authorized?

0 Replies

Precisely.

0 Replies

...by?

0 Replies

double post.

0 Replies

The US Congress?

0 Replies

woiyo wrote:

Since we have gone to war post 9-11, let's look at some of the tings that have happened
1. Afganistan - Taliban regime out...Democraticlly elected officials in.
2. Iraq - Saddam out, democraticlly elected officials in and going forward.
3. Libya - Giving up nukes
4. Lebenon- Kicking out Syria under way
5. Isreal/Palistine-Some progress
6. Egypt- Looking at real elections

The middle East is changing and our security is improved.

Let's look at a few other things that have happened during that span:
1. Massachusetts supreme court rules in favor of gay marriage
2. Paul Martin succeeds Jean Chretien as Canadian prime minister
3. Florida hit by three hurricanes in one season
4. Two wild-card teams win the world series
5. Bob Hope and Marlon Brando died

Folks, let this be a lesson: correlation and causation are your friends. When you craft your arguments, don't forget your friends.

0 Replies

Lash wrote:

Guantanamo was a good idea. We were housing and questioning terrorists. They don't deserve the rights American citizens have. They were attacking American citizens, with a goal of overthrowing our government.

Well, let's assume there's a war. Generally, in a war, one side attacks the other side, maybe wants to overthrow their government.

Because of this, you are saying, the side being attacked has the right to torture their POWs?

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know