"Why, exactly, did you support this war?" (for O'Bill etc)

mysteryman wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
Baldi,

You seem to have completely missed the point that the weapons deteriorate over time. You can't just make a shell full of poison gas and leave it on the shelf for twenty years, and expect it to actually work. It doesn't.

WMD aren't just something that can be made once and then left around anywhere until they are conveinent. Dangerous stuff, degrades quickly.

You state that:

Quote:
He has even stated that Iraq had the best record keeping of any other country in the ME and they didn't find any evidence that WMD's were destroyed.

No, Blix stated that they didn't have evidence that ALL the WMD were destroyed. There was plenty of evidence that SOME were destroyed.

Quote:

I know what my gut tells me and it tells me that something isn't right with those weapons.

Yeah, forget about evidence, logic, proof, any of that jazz; we all know that gut feelings are the most accurate ones in the long run.

Cycloptichorn

And you seem to conveniently ignore the point that Saddam was required to account for ALL OF HIS WMD,not just some of it.
He didnt,so he was in violation.
Even you say that he didnt account for ALL of it.
That alone was a material violation of the agreement.

So,even if the WMD had degraded so much they were worthless,the fact remains that he still had them.
Neither Iraq nor Hans Blix could account for all of the Iraqi WMD,and to this day they cant.

So Mr. Expert,lets see you do what the UN and Iraq both could not do and tell us where ALL of the Iraqi WMD went.
Every drop of gas,every artillery shell,every biological WMD,every piece of the Iraqi nuclear program,every lab,etc.

Since the UN couldnt do that,and since Iraq couldnt do that,lets see you do that.

This is absolute bunk. The question of import in this matter is, what is worth going to war over? Wmd, Wmd programs, or maybe desire for WMD programs?

Lots of nations are in violation of UN agreements, including the US and Israel. It isn't a basis for going to war. What would be a basis would be proof of WMD, which is what the admin. invented to justify their war. Without their lies, we would not have gone to war in Iraq - and you know it!

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Scott Ritter, the chief on-the-ground inspector was relived and ridiculed when he said that "No WMD's are there". Its a myth. I didnt even belive him when Colin Powell came to the UN with (what we know now) were bogus airphotos of junk. Also the entire nuclear fear was based on a WISH. Im sure that Andorra would like a nuclear weapons umbrella. Our abilities to sniff nuke isotopes and isotope "cocktails" is very sophisticated. so dont think that if they were going through the processes , we couldnt detect it downrange. The country is only as big as Texas.

Lets face it, we were lied to and some of us still cant believe it.

0 Replies

Re: BBB

BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:

When and why did you make your decision "long before it occured"? Did you favor invading Baghdad and killing Saddam during the first Bush's war to drive Iraq from Kuwait?---BBB

Brandon9000 wrote:
I seem to recall that I made this decision around the late 1990s, although I'm not sure exactly when. It was definitely before George Bush announced his candidacy for the presidency. I do not recall whether or not I had any particular feelings about the decision not to invade Baghdad during Gulf War 1.

Were you influenced in your decision by William Kristle's new organization, The New American Century?
http://www.newamericancentury.org

No, I've never heard of them. What I'm saying is that this is my own opinion, not one I believe because of someone else's statements.

0 Replies

Re: BBB

Brandon9000 wrote:

BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:
When and why did you make your decision "long before it occured"? Did you favor invading Baghdad and killing Saddam during the first Bush's war to drive Iraq from Kuwait?---BBB

Brandon9000 wrote:
I seem to recall that I made this decision around the late 1990s, although I'm not sure exactly when. It was definitely before George Bush announced his candidacy for the presidency. I do not recall whether or not I had any particular feelings about the decision not to invade Baghdad during Gulf War 1.

Were you influenced in your decision by William Kristle's new organization, The New American Century?
http://www.newamericancentury.org

No, I've never heard of them. What I'm saying is that this is my own opinion, not one I believe because of someone else's statements.

I agree with you Brandon. I haven't heard of these people either but believed we should have finished Saddam in 91 and the UN be damned. I was a supporter for invading Iraq as far back as 95. We never finished the job and I know in my heart of hearts that we would be back, had to be back because tigers don't change their stripes. Saddam wasn't going to follow the sactions.

Do you think that if the war in Iraq hadn't happened that the oil for food scandle would still be going on? Important question to ask yourself. Remember at the time of the inspectors being in country Saddam didn't inform them that he had a possible violation of the sactions when he was building some rockets that exceeded the range limit of the sactions. They built these missiles and knew they went father then the sactions and still didn't inform the inspection teams about them. Does that seem like someone who was willing to change the way they ran their country?

0 Replies

Is any of that enough of a reason for war?

0 Replies

FreeDuck wrote:

Is any of that enough of a reason for war?

In the case of Iraq...yes!!!

0 Replies

Quote:

we should have finished Saddam in 91 and the UN be damned

Apparently GW Bush senior and Colin Powell and Cheney be damned as well. All three of them had extremely vivid and cautionary tales about the folly that invading Iraq would be. All three were exactly right, and we're seeing the effects of that folly today.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Not "why did I support the use of force in Iraq", but "why DO I support continuation of the effort to defeat those forces that would turn Iraq into another new Islamic State where ancient Shira Law prevails"?

I believed that President Bush made a grieveous mistake in not capturing Baghdad after defeating Iraq in the Gulf War. The limited mission of ejecting Saddam from Kuwait had been achieved, but it isn't enough to treat a cough and leave a cancer to grow.

People in the intelligence community had been warning of increased operations by a growing Radical Islamic Movement, but no one wanted to listen ... in either Party, or in Congress, nor on Mainstreet. Americans continued to believe that increasingly vicious attacks were without any real significance, and that there would never be an attack on American soil. We did not then, nor do we now, have a clear and effective doctrine for waging a war against transnational religious aggression. The rules of war that we and most other civilized countries have accepted do not apply when the enemy wears no uniforms, has no formal formations or chain of command, AND that enemy sneers at the idea of conducting military operations according to agreed upon constraints.

9/11 was a wakeup call, and for a brief period American anger and emotional need for reprisals was wide spread. We had long known that Al Queda and the Taliban were playing patty-cake, that the ISI was complicit, and that both Iran and Iraq were sponsoring and encouraging terrorist acts against Israel and the West. Saddam fostered the belief that he had, or soon would have a range of terror weapons forbidden as a condition of his surrender after the Gulf War. It was well and widely known that the People of Iraq were severely punished when the depended upon the Western Coalition to institute a new and more democratic government in their country.

At the time of our reopening the Gulf War conflict, many of A2K posters worried that renewal of hostilities result in massive U.S. casualties. environmental polution many times greater than Saddam's attempt at destroying Iraq's oil resources. This administration did try to put together an international coalition, but France (owed huge debts for selling Saddam equipment, etc. on the grey market), Russia (lucrative deals for military hardware, ammunition, etc.), and others. UN administrators were getting rich off of trading in black market petroleum "smuggled" by truck out through Syria. Those countries with large, and increasingly radical Islamic communities were frightened that they too might be targeted by Al Queda, so they wanted "Peace in Our Time". Dear Olde Blighty bit the bullet and showed once again the fortitude that has long made Britain's fame.

The military conducted a fast and effective campaign that went off extremely well, and with minimum casualties all round. We lost time and opportunities by not being able to bring quick order to the chaos following our victory. Partially that was because the military was still thinking in terms of more or less conventional combat. The attempt to de-Saddamize Iraq without first securing the streets and infrastructure was pretty much a failure. On the other hand, we were anxious to have the Iraqi People form their own government and take hold of their own future. We didn't appreciate how violently the Shia and Suni hated one another, nor did we expect the religious leaders of Iraq to so completely side with the Radical Islamic Movement. Al Queda's ability to infiltrate and foster conflict and terror against every effort to rebuild Iraq was greater than we supposed. Movement of military supplies and advisers from Syria and Iran has been much harder to stem than though originally.

Conservative Republicans also want to get us out of Iraq ... as soon as possible, practicable and without increasing the risk of unleashing upon the world a fresh wave of terrorist attacks. There are some signs that finally some progress has been made, but much more still needs to be done. It is far better to bleed and break Radical Islam in Iraq than in countless other spots around the world. This is not a struggle that will end soon, and I've certainly never suggested otherwise. So far there have been fewer U.S. casualties in an extremely difficult environment over three years than we sustained on the Battle for Iwo Jima. Of course, there the Corps didn't have every casualty listed daily around the world, and no unfortunate civilians were caught in the cross fire because the Japanese chose to fight on a small island rather than in the midst of one of their cities. Our fathers were not so politically correct, but they were tenacious and dedicated to achieving a U.S./Allied Victory. Unfortunately, we can't say the same for Porsche-driving Anarchists, or advocates of using the power of the Federal Government to pursue socialism as a means toward achieving peace with our enemies.

0 Replies

Re: BBB

BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:

I'd like to broaden the question.

Would you have approved invading Iraq if a Democrat president had proposed the war for any reason, including WMDs? Why?

Did it make a difference that it was a Republican president who made the decision? Why?

BBB

When a President of the US believes this Nation is at risk, when a President of the US believes there is a clear and present danger, I would believe that the President has factual cinfirmation of the threat and I would expect the President to act in the best interest of this Nation REGARDLESS OF PARTY AFFILIATION.

If a Democrat was in office and the same argument was made, I would have supported the initial invasion of Iraq and I did support GW.

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

FreeDuck wrote:
Is any of that enough of a reason for war?

In the case of Iraq...yes!!!

Then is it reason enough to go to war against any other country of whom we can make the same complaints?

Again, I'm not hearing any weighing going on. I'm hearing from people who had two columns -- for and against -- and only bother to fill one of them out before making a decision. Were there any reasons to NOT go to war in your minds? If so, why did your reasons FOR outweigh those AGAINST?

0 Replies

FreeDuck wrote:

mysteryman wrote:
FreeDuck wrote:
Is any of that enough of a reason for war?

In the case of Iraq...yes!!!

Then is it reason enough to go to war against any other country of whom we can make the same complaints?

Again, I'm not hearing any weighing going on. I'm hearing from people who had two columns -- for and against -- and only bother to fill one of them out before making a decision. Were there any reasons to NOT go to war in your minds? If so, why did your reasons FOR outweigh those AGAINST?

Because nukes and bioweapons in the hands of an evil, imperialistic madman with a penchant for annexing neighbors would have been really, really, bad, and many, many people might have died stopping him. How many freaking times do we have to say it? It's not complicated. He had a history of hiding his development programs and lying about it. At the time we invaded, it was utterly unclear whether he had dismantled them or merely hidden them better, but he had not presented any convincing evidence that he had stopped, which he certainly could have.

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

At the time we invaded, it was utterly unclear whether he had dismantled them or merely hidden them better, but he had certainly not presented any convincing evidence that he had stopped, which he certainly could have.

You said it best, Brandon. Again, you have missed an opportunity to explain how your reasons outweighed any reasons against and I am growing more certain it is because you never contemplated any reasons against. You accepted a doomsday scenario and consequences of the action be damned.

In actuality, there was plenty of evidence that Saddam did not have the weapons you speak of and that it would be a very long time before he had any ability to get them. North Korea, on the other hand... Can you not think of other evil madmen who are apparently also suicidal and stupid enough to believe that it would be a good idea to begin a nuclear war with the certitude that the US would wipe their country off the map? Should we not also immediately invade their countries and destabilize their regions? If not, why not? It must be because there are compelling reasons NOT to do it. Were there not also compelling reasons NOT to invade Iraq? If so, why did they not matter?

0 Replies

FreeDuck wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
At the time we invaded, it was utterly unclear whether he had dismantled them or merely hidden them better, but he had certainly not presented any convincing evidence that he had stopped, which he certainly could have.

You said it best, Brandon. Again, you have missed an opportunity to explain how your reasons outweighed any reasons against and I am growing more certain it is because you never contemplated any reasons against. You accepted a doomsday scenario and consequences of the action be damned.

In actuality, there was plenty of evidence that Saddam did not have the weapons you speak of and that it would be a very long time before he had any ability to get them. North Korea, on the other hand... Can you not think of other evil madmen who are apparently also suicidal and stupid enough to believe that it would be a good idea to begin a nuclear war with the certitude that the US would wipe their country off the map? Should we not also immediately invade their countries and destabilize their regions? If not, why not? It must be because there are compelling reasons NOT to do it. Were there not also compelling reasons NOT to invade Iraq? If so, why did they not matter?

You're asking people to 2nd guess themselves but I don't see you doing the same. Could you see a reason to go to war?

You are saying that we should have gone into North Korea correct? If that is so then where are the years and years of dealing with UN sanctions as well as dealing with a ceasefire? Would you have supported a war with North Korea or are you just bringing up NK to divert the fact that you would never agree to war like actions.
.

0 Replies

FreeDuck wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
At the time we invaded, it was utterly unclear whether he had dismantled them or merely hidden them better, but he had certainly not presented any convincing evidence that he had stopped, which he certainly could have.

You said it best, Brandon. Again, you have missed an opportunity to explain how your reasons outweighed any reasons against and I am growing more certain it is because you never contemplated any reasons against. You accepted a doomsday scenario and consequences of the action be damned.

In actuality, there was plenty of evidence that Saddam did not have the weapons you speak of and that it would be a very long time before he had any ability to get them. North Korea, on the other hand... Can you not think of other evil madmen who are apparently also suicidal and stupid enough to believe that it would be a good idea to begin a nuclear war with the certitude that the US would wipe their country off the map? Should we not also immediately invade their countries and destabilize their regions? If not, why not? It must be because there are compelling reasons NOT to do it. Were there not also compelling reasons NOT to invade Iraq? If so, why did they not matter?

Everything you've just said is wrong. There is not a certainty that an attack on the US would result in the destruction of the perpetrator. They could smuggled the components of nukes or bioweapons into the US, re-assemble them here, kill a million people here, and then deny responsibility.

Saddam Hussein might have used the mere knowledge of the weapons to force his neighbors to accede to his demands over and over. He could have re-invaded Kuwait and dared anyone to stop him.

We don't invade North Korea because it's too late, they already have nukes.

It wasn't at all certain that if Iraq had nuke and/or bioweapons programs hidden it would be a very long time before they reached fruition. It might have been just a few years, and if he had still had such programs, there might have been a finite time window of opportunity before it was too late, and the weapons made him virtually invulnerable to attack.

Yes, if some other terrible dictator has been developing nukes and bioweapons, and may well still be doing so, and if more than a decade of negotiations, sanctions, and demands have failed to produce much evidence he has stopped, we should probably invade.

But, the fundamental thing you seem not to grasp is that one single one of these weapons could kill hundreds of thousands of people in one blow, several of them could kill a million people or more, and even a moderate chance that a horrible dictator is still proceeding with development is a very, very serious threat.

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

We don't invade North Korea because it's too late, they already have nukes.

And people wonder why Iran is interested in developing its own nuclear weapons.

0 Replies

Freeduck,
Several of us have given you our reasons for supporting the war.
We have given you our reasons for supporting the invasion.
Now you are asking if we considered reasons to not go to war,or if we just accepted the "doomsday scenario".

I cant speak for anyone else,so I will give you my answer to that question.
Did I consider reasons to not go to war?
To be honest,no I didn't.
I was a soldier,and when ordered to fight,I fought.
I do admit that there were probably some good reasons to not go to war,and looking back,I can see that.
There was the possibility that we could destabilize the area,the possibility that we could lose or suffer massive casualties.

But as a soldier,my job was to go where they sent me,and fight who they told me to fight.
I had to rely on the judgement of my superiors,and the knowledge that they had more information then I was privy to and that they had ALL the info needed to justify the decision to invade.

But,looking back,I still think the decision to invade was justified,based on what I was told and what I knew then,and I believe the war is still justified.
I would return to Iraq tomorrow if I was asked to or ordered to.

As for you mentioning North Korea,I believe the situation is different.
NK is an entirely different situation.
They are contained on all sides,they have not shown a RECENT history of aggressive actions towards their neighbors,such as invading other countries,they have not used WMD on their own people or their neighbors.
They are contained and while they are blustering and showing braggadocio towards their neighbors,they have not actually threatened or invaded anyone.

Do I believe there have been mistakes made,yes I do.
Do I support the initial actions and our ongoing effort in Iraq now,yes I do.

I cant speak for anyone else,but I hope I have answered your question,as far as I personally am concerned.

0 Replies

Hard questions, four years later.
By Christopher Hitchens
Posted Monday, March 19, 2007, at 1:53 PM ET

Four years after the first coalition soldiers crossed the Iraqi border, one can attract pitying looks (at best) if one does not take the view that the whole engagement could have been and should have been avoided. Those who were opposed to the operation from the beginning now claim vindication, and many of those who supported it say that if they had known then what they know now, they would have spoken or voted differently.

What exactly does it mean to take the latter position? At what point, in other words, ought the putative supporter to have stepped off the train? The question isn't as easy to answer as some people would have you believe. Suppose we run through the actual timeline:

Was the president right or wrong to go to the United Nations in September 2002 and to say that body could no longer tolerate Saddam Hussein's open flouting of its every significant resolution, from weaponry to human rights to terrorism?

A majority of the member states thought he was right and had to admit that the credibility of the United Nations was at stake. It was scandalous that such a regime could for more than a decade have violated the spirit and the letter of the resolutions that had allowed a cease-fire after the liberation of Kuwait. The Security Council, including Syria, voted by nine votes to zero that Iraq must come into full compliance or face serious consequences.

Was it then correct to send military forces to the Gulf, in case Saddam continued his long policy of defiance, concealment, and expulsion or obstruction of U.N. inspectors?

If you understand the history of the inspection process at all, you must concede that Saddam would never have agreed to readmit the inspectors if coalition forces had not made their appearance on his borders and in the waters of the Gulf. It was never a choice between inspection and intervention: It was only the believable threat of an intervention that enabled even limited inspections to resume.

Should it not have been known by Western intelligence that Iraq had no stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction?Could Iraq have been believably "inspected" while the Baath Party remained in power?Wasn't Colin Powell's performance at the United Nations a bit of a disgrace?Was the terror connection not exaggerated?Was a civil war not predictable?So, you seriously mean to say that we would not be living in a better or safer world if the coalition forces had turned around and sailed or flown home in the spring of 2003?

That's exactly what I mean to say.

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

As for you mentioning North Korea,I believe the situation is different.
NK is an entirely different situation.
They are contained on all sides,they have not shown a RECENT history of aggressive actions towards their neighbors,such as invading other countries,they have not used WMD on their own people or their neighbors.
They are contained and while they are blustering and showing braggadocio towards their neighbors,they have not actually threatened or invaded anyone.

US Undersecretary of State John Bolton, Interview on North Korea, January 24, 2002

Quote:

The real problem is North Korea's aggressive actions toward its neighbors in the region, and the highly militarized state of its population, what they call their "military first" policy.

0 Replies

Baldimo wrote:

You're asking people to 2nd guess themselves but I don't see you doing the same. Could you see a reason to go to war?

I saw all of the reasons you all have put forward and I found them less than compelling for several reasons. One is that I doubted the veracity of the claims. Another is that it was widely reported that the strikes on Iraq in the late 90s at all but obliterated Saddam's ability to make nuclear weapons. Another is that Iraq was desirous to have sanctions lifted, which presented a very strong diplomatic opportunity to get what we wanted without destroying the country and destabilizing the region. I certainly understand the need to prevent nuclear proliferation and to liberate people from a dictator. Those are reasons, maybe even good reasons. But I found several very compelling reasons to avoid war. One was that it would take resources away from Afghanistan -- a mission we had not accomplished yet. Another is that there was not firm exit strategy. Another is that there was no clear plan as to what would happen after the fall of Saddam -- who would fill that power vacuum? Another was that our president is clearly incompetent and already had a history of putting people in positions of power who were similarly incompetent but politically very friendly. (Don't cry partisan, I'm not a Democrat or partisan of any kind, but it's plain to see for those with eyes.) Another is that it had the potential to increase terrorism and destabilize the region. Another is the extraordinary human cost to turning someone's country into a battlefield. Another is the amount of money that it would cost -- especially if it turned out to be endless or deteriorated into chaos. In my mind, the reasons AGAINST outweighed the reasons FOR.

Quote:

You are saying that we should have gone into North Korea correct?

No, I am saying that if your reasons were strong enough, convincing enough, to require war with Iraq that they also require war with North Korea. If they are not, then it is because there are/were enough compelling, strong, reasons not to go to war with N. Korea that outweighed the reasons TO go to war with N. Korea. And I'm asking you to acknowledge that there were also reasons not to go to war with Iraq that should have caused you to pause before supporting such an action.

Now it's your turn.

0 Replies

Freeduck said...

Quote:

Another is that there was not firm exit strategy

This is a failry new phrase,since the Vietnam war.

The "exit strategy" of every war we have ever fought is the same,defeat the enemy,destroy their ability to resist or to wage war,and go home.
that has ALWAYS been the "exit strategy".

Only recently have there been calls for an "exit strategy" to be in place before a war is fought.

0 Replies

"Why, exactly, did you support this war?" (for O'Bill etc)

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know