I agree whole heartedly that Saddam bluffed, flaunted, and attempted to portray, that he was the craziest baddest muther on the earth, but in my eyes thats all it ever was posturing!
It is the duty of our elected officials to weight the consequences of such drastic actions as war. I believe in my core that they knew it was posturing, but for many if not all of the reasons listed by Just the Facts, they presented it as a real and imminent threat when is wasn’t to get the green light.
I know in your estimation it was totally warranted and their threat was real and imminent. Let me ask you this. Should we now launch a pre-imminent attack on North Korea? They damn sure have WMDs and that crazy little bastard kim makes just as many if not more threats then Saddam!
“Should we now launch a pre-imminent attack on North Korea? They damn sure have WMDs and that crazy little bastard kim makes just as many if not more threats then Saddam!”
No, I don’t believe there is a flat prescription for dealing with these maniacs.
I am a big fan of diplomacy - providing that diplomacy is backed by a very real and very stout use of force. What we had in Iraq was the end of diplomacy, or at least, the retardation of diplomacy. I’m not exactly sure those who had veto power over military action in Iraq were acting in good faith.
We had been at war with Iraq since the so-called end of the Gulf War. Sanctions were in place - a form of warfare, don’t forget, with terrible consequences - and not only did we patrol the no-fly zones for better than a decade, Saddam fired back at our military assets. Clinton ordered Desert Fox - a military strike specifically intended “to strike military and security targets in Iraq that contribute to Iraq’s ability to produce, store, maintain and deliver weapons of mass destruction.”
That’s state of war, Elk.
We’ve been at war with Iraq since 1991. And after the events of 9/11, it was time to cash out of a nickel-and-diming affair in Iraq that was a slow drip on military resources in the region and that sent a weak, pathetic message to any transgressors in the future.
By contrast, we are not at that point with North Korea. We are not in a state of war with them. Kim-Jong-Il is posturing a lot, but he’s been put on notice. The case study on Saddam as a dictator’s blueprints on how to manipulate the international community came to an abrupt and rude end. NK now has to deal with a superpower that whose threats aren’t empty or flaccid.
In short, Elk, invading Iraq changed the game. One of the great dividends of Iraq was power projection - the rules of the 1990’s aren’t valid anymore. Terrorists and wannabe Hitlers now have to consider that retribution will be swift and unforgiving, rather than relativist and appeasing.
So, there’s no reason to attack NK - why do that? It’s better to sit back and see how NK reacts to what it saw in Afghanistan and Iraq. It’s time to let Big Stick diplomacy do its work - defeating or castrating an enemy without having to launch a missile.
Yes, Thunder, I am very familiar with how non complient he was with the resolutions. How he shot at our planes in the no fly zones. I just disagree with you on how it should have been handled.
Inferring to the public Saddam and Iraq were linked to 9/11 was a deceptive tactic. Saying that Iraq was an immininet threat was outright deceptive.
If they came out and said OUR not some one elses best and brightest intell analysts are giving us indisputible intell that the Iraqi people are going to welcome us with roses and are just waiting for us to take care of the military power of Saddam. If they presented the real reasons that I believe Just the Facts presented. I still would have not agreed, but I would have had more respect for their honesty.
As far as the intell goes many of our best and brightest were saying don’t do it for a multitude of reasons. If your vision pans out then I will eat crow and admit I was wrong, but sadly I don’t think that will be the case.
WMD. Just because they haven’t been found doesn’t mean there isn’t any WMD. Let say someone murdered someone. They shot them and ditched the gun. Say the guy got busted but can’t find the gun. Does that mean that since they can’t find the gun that it doesn’t exist?
Also, WMD wasn’t the only reason we went to war. Saddam broke resolutions. Enough said.
Lets see. People saying Saddam wasn’t a direct threat. Well, should we wait until he has missles pointing at us or Israel to go and attack him? Clinton should of gone after him and Osama way back in the early 90s. We probably wouldn’t of had 9/11 even.
I really wish some people would actually talk to some soldiers and see what they say about the war. The media shows only the bad things about the war. They don’t tell us what they accomplished.
I just wanted to express how much I admire and value your input here! I very much agree with both of your views on this topic.
To me this is not republican or democrat. I would be just as angry if this whole action had been carried out by a John Kerry or Bill Clinton. For me the insult are the lies and deception and taking the American people as gullible fools who would by the imminent threat story as a whole country without question![/quote]
Thanks Elk, same here!
Your right, this isn’t a party issue at all. How many times has this administration said: WMD’s are everywhere! We’ll be greated as liberators! Things are going great in Iraq! The insurgency is 90% defeated! The Iraqi people are free!
The next great success will be the elections!
Everytime it’s a load of BS but if you don’t believe it, you aren’t “supporting the troops”. I don’t care who is president, don’t BS me, a F’up is a F’up. I’ll give the guys on the right here credit, they definitely stayed on message.
They don’t care…as they made abundantely clear. It’s a Bush decision and that’s why they hate it.
It will cause great good in the Middle East and protect the country. They are so pissed a Liberal didn’t do it, while in office, they will attack it endlessly. Fortunately without logic or merit.
At the end of the argument of the week, however, it always comes back to the point of thier discontent…Bush.
First, I’m neither left nor right. I see good and bad in both sides.
Now as for that self-serving, arrogant, pseudo-journalist, pile of crap Michael Moore…
They’re not so much lies as they are facts strung together for Moore’s argument. You’re not getting an historical account of events. You’re getting what Moore wants you to see. He is notorious for stretching the truth to suit his own agenda. One example in a previous movie is showing Charles Heston at an NRA conference holding the rifle over his head while having a voice over of a different NRA conference. He purposely sliced two speeches together to give a more powerful image and get the viewer emotionally involved.
Now that part in the movie where Bush is still sitting doing nothing after being told of the attack has been a huge part of a criticism against Moore. Namely, Moore is on record arguing that Bush acted too quickly to retaliate and should have taken more time. Yet here is Moore showing a slow-to-action president and argues that he should have done something sooner.
Also, consider this. Michael Moore had an exclusive contract with a major book retail chain to help sell and promote one of his books, it may have been his ‘stupid white men book.’ He went on a signing tour across the county and got a lot of publicity and made a lot of money. When the contract was up, he spear-headed a group that attacked the chain on unfounded grounds, but as long as he was able to spin it and get more publicity he had no integrity issues. He only cares about the applause and the awards.
Lastly, and the point that upsets me the most with his tactics, is that emotionally driven, trick question that he tries to trap everyone with. To paraphrase, would you send your child off to die in this war? If you answer yes, then you don’t care about the safety of your children. If you answer no, then you’re agreeing with Moore.
As for not suing Moore…
The Supreme court issued a ruling on this in 1964 in the case of Times v Sullivan, where they said:
"[W]e consider this case against the background of a profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open, and that it may well include vehement, caustic, and sometimes un pleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials.‘’
and
‘’[c]riticism of their official conduct does not lose its constitutional protection merely because it is effective criticism and hence diminishes their official reputation.‘’
This ruling and the law behind it ensures that Michael Moore has the right to say what ever he wants about Bush, without fear of legal action. Just we have the right to expose Moore for what he is.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Wow, I guess we can have a whole new thread in which we regurgitate all the same things that have been argued about in the last 10 Iraq threads.
I am going to confine myself to one response on this thread, unless I see some new information – I just get tired of typing the same stuff over and over.
WMD were one justification of four major justifications on which the administration publicly based its rationale for the invasion of Iraq. THe fact that the media made it the focus of attention does not make it the sole rationale. Please review all the old threads for a summary.
They haven’t found anything as of yet. However, Iraq is a large country, and there could be stuff hidden in lots of places there, and there are respectable claims that substances were moved into Syria (where, coincidentally, major former Hussein regime figures have ensconced themselves).
The reason they stopped searching was that there were problems with security – as in the security of the searchers. But the report does not conclude there was nothing there – only that there was nothing found. That is a big difference, especially given the infrastructure for producing weapons that was in place, and the information from the Oil for Food scandal that indicated Hussein planned to restart his programs as soon as he had manuevered an end to the economic sanctions (the sanctions were a huge failure, btw).
It is problematic and disappointing that there was an intelligence failure concerning the amount of WMD immediately at hand in Iraq. However, everyone thought he had that stuff – the official positions of all the governments, including France, was that he had WMD and should be given time to get into compliance.
So, yes, it’s problematic we had an intelligence failure. But that does not undermine the other rationales, which were advanced at the time and not simply trotted out post hoc, and we have not even proven that the WMD rationale was completely wrong.
Please talk amongst yourselves.[/quote]
So what were the other major rationales that haven’t been debunked?
Yes the press had a lot to do with reporting the “so-called” WMD’s but the administration talked about in incessantly. Should the press not have reported it? The press should have called into serious question the whole WMD “intelligence failures”. But then again they work hand-in-hand with the crimminals in D.C. so you really can’t expect much. Now thousands have lost their lives, families have been destroyed and more people are joining the forces of terror because of our nations actions.
House, it’s funny, even the government has given up searching for WMD’s. The government believes that they are not there!
So, ahem, kool-aid drinkers, its time to revert your message to that which states WMD’s were never an important factor anyway… as a few of you have been doing.
Anyhow, to reminisce, remember the good old days, back when Saddam actually had WMD’s? Yeah, those were the days, weren’t they?
Good one, OIL and profits being the reason for the war is just as nutty as aliens. What’s even funnier is just by process of elimination, the alien story is more likely than the one you believe. And I’m not sure what Resolution 1441 has to do with anything other than being a list the US can pick from to further their agenda.
As far as oil, considering Iraq has some of the largest untapped, oil reserves in the world and an administration who’s President and most of his upper cabinet members have direct ties to the oil industry including the Vice-President, who was a former CEO of one of the largest oil contractor/equipment suppliers in the world.
Heavily Censored Energy Department Papers Show Industry is the Real Author of Administration’s Energy Task Force Report
WASHINGTON (March 27, 2002) – Despite being heavily censored, the thousands of Department of Energy documents released under court order this week confirm the intimate, secretive relationship between huge, politically connected corporations and the White House energy task force.
Included were maps of Iraq divided up like a butcher beef charts showing where the prime oil deposits were located as well as lists of potential buyers for this oil. http://www.judicialwatch.org/071703.c_.shtml
White House energy task force papers reveal Iraqi oil maps
WorldNetDaily - July 18, 2003
WASHINGTON - The controversial White House energy task force two years ago reviewed Iraqi oil-field maps and “foreign suitors for Iraqi oil-field contracts,” reveal documents turned over under court order to a government watchdog group by a member of the task force.
Judicial Watch Inc. first requested the documents under the Freedom of Information Act in the spring of 2001, when Vice President Dick Cheney formed the secret task force. The public-interest law firm has battled the administration in federal court for the information ever since. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=33642
Even with all those plans you can’t just invade a country without public or world support just for it’s resources. But who could have guessed what was about to happen?
Ashcroft Flying High
CBS News - July 26, 2001
In response to inquiries from CBS News over why Ashcroft was traveling exclusively by leased jet aircraft instead of commercial airlines, the Justice Department cited what it called a “threat assessment” by the FBI, and said Ashcroft has been advised to travel only by private jet for the remainder of his term. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/07/26/national/main303601.shtml
Of course after the original war on terror and hunt for bin Laden in retaliation for 9/11 it suddenly turns to Iraq on the pretext that there were major ties between Saddam & al Qaeda (you can’t distinguish between Saddam and bin Laden we’re told) this info proves to be exaggerated and false.
“911 Commission finds no credible evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States.”
Before the start of the war UN inspectors and weapons experts found almost no evidence of weapons programs and their findings contradicted Powell’s latest report. (be sure and watch the 2 video interviews) http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/10/14/60II/main577975.shtml
In fact weapons inspectors so outspoken in their opinion considered all of the U.S.'s leads exaggerated, false, outdated and completely unreliable, including evidence showing Iraq’s uranium purchase from Niger was fake, the aluminum tubes referenced by Powell in his speech were not for uranium production and Saddam had no long-range missile capabilities. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/01/18/iraq/main537096.shtml
But KNOWING all this, America (and the World) is told by Bush, Saddam is not disarming.
Related:
“When it comes to corruption, Halliburton may be just the tip of the iceberg. According the CPA’s latest report, we are now witnessing an epidemic of corruption: 38 potential criminal cases associated with the Iraq contracts are still under investigation, while 75 had been closed or referred to other investigative agencies. The Defense Criminal Investigative Service had 16 open cases as of the beginning of October.” http://www.corporatepolicy.org/
“Of the 30 members of the Defense Policy Board, the government-appointed group that advises the Pentagon, at least nine have ties to companies that have won more than $76 billion in defense contracts in 2001 and 2002. Four members are registered lobbyists, one of whom represents two of the three largest defense contractors.”
Of course during the initial invasion, the Ministry of Oil is the only building completely guarded and secured while historic museums and surrounding businesses were looted.
“In Iraq itself, art experts and ordinary demonstrators made clear they were far angrier at President George Bush than they were at the looters, noting that the only building US forces seemed genuinely interested in protecting was the Ministry of Oil.”
" Although the museum is only one of hundreds of buildings to fall prey to looters, its status as one of the most important repositories of ancient civilization is likely to inflame particular resentment towards the Americans, in the Arab world and beyond." http://www.unitedforpeace.org/article.php?id=1574
“Hunt for WMD’s” soon becomes “Operation Iraqi Freedom”
(amazingly, history will show some people actually fall for this)
Thank you for supporting my election
RECORD PRICES, RECORD OIL INDUSTRY PROFITS
Consumers Gouged, Oil Industry Enriched, As Gasoline And Natural Gas Prices Increase By $250 BillionSince January 2000
(Washington, D.C.) Domestic petroleum companies have stuck U.S. gasoline and natural gas consumers with about $250 billion in price hikes since January 2000, resulting in an increase in after-tax windfall profits of $50 to $80 billion to the industry, a report released today by the Consumer Federation of America and Consumers Union concluded. http://www.consumersunion.org/pub/core_other_issues/001086.html
War helps BP to record profits
April 29, 2003
LONDON, England (CNN) – BP, the world’s third-largest oil company, posted record quarterly profits on Tuesday as the war in Iraq and strikes in Venezuela pushed prices to a 12-year high. http://www.cnn.com/2003/BUSINESS/04/29/bp/
War propels Exxon profits to record $7bn
May 2, 2003
The Guardian
ExxonMobil, the world’s biggest privately owned oil group and a target of street protesters, celebrated May Day by reporting the largest quarterly corporate profits in history at $7.04bn
hhttp://www.guardian.co.uk/oil/story/0,11319,947859,00.html
ChevronTexaco profit more than doubles
AP - Jul 30, 2004
SAN RAMON, Calif. – ChevronTexaco Corp.'s second-quarter profit more than doubled as high energy prices extended a recent roll that is shaping into the most prosperous stretch in the oil giant’s 125-year history.
The San Ramon-based company said Friday that it earned $4.13 billion, or $3.88 per share, for the three months ended in June compared with $1.6 billion, or $1.50 per share, a year earlier. It represented the largest three-month profit that the company has recorded since its formation in 1879.
“This is turning into a racket,” said Jamie Court, president of the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights, a Santa Monica watchdog group that wants the Federal Trade Commission to investigate the oil industry’s pricing practices. Every quarter, it seems like we see world-record profits on top of last year’s world-record profits." http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/utilities/nw/nw004518.php3
Oil companies, which in 2003 posted their highest profits in decades, appear on pace for an even better 2004.
“Wow” was the single-word preface of an internal Shell Oil memo detailing its surprisingly large spring refinery profits, according a report by the Seattle Times in April.
Exxon Mobil (NYSE:XOM - News), the world’s largest listed oil company, said worldwide refining and marketing earnings surged 39 percent to $1 billion in the first quarter, its highest result for that period in 13 years. Domestic downstream profit more than doubled to $392 million.
ConocoPhillips (NYSE:COP - News), the biggest refiner in the United States, said domestic refining and marketing earnings more than doubled to $403 million from $150 million.
ChevronTexaco, the No. 2 U.S. oil company, said domestic downstream income rose nearly fourfold to $276 million.
Oil refiner Valero Energy (NYSE:VLO - News) said earnings rose 46 percent to a record $248.1 million.
Now surprise, surprise, we haven’t found SHIT…same thing we found before 2000 soldiers and tens of thousands of Iraqis were killed. Same thing we found before historic, ancient cities were destroyed in a country now on the verge of civil war.
But we did manage to motivate a billion potential new terrorists and an entire world now looks at us in disgust for what we did to a country that sadly, had nothing to do with 9/11. (Believe it or not some people actually think there was a connection there)
I guess it’s good for some people to hang on to beliefs like the “Saddam / al-Qaeda link” or the “immediate threat scenario” or the “massive amounts of WMD`s” that WERE definitely, absolutely, positively there but obviously got moved out or buried in the sand because otherwise, since we didn’t really find anything that we already knew wasn’t going to be there anyway, it might appear like we were in Iraq for a completely different reason.
I’d really like you to be wrong… because I don’t want to live in a world where the rich and powerful throw away lives with such disdain just for bigger profits.
However, I am not naive, and I know that this has in fact been how things have been done for many centuries.
I’d like to think we’ve finally gotten past such behavior - that democracies remove the grips of power from those with money. Honestly though, rich people get elected, rich people with corporate connections who can pander to interest groups.
So, while I am attempting to sit on the fence still, I will admit that something stinks… even if it is all coincidence, which many people don’t believe in, it still stinks.
I’d really like you to be wrong… because I don’t want to live in a world where the rich and powerful throw away lives with such disdain just for bigger profits.
However, I am not naive, and I know that this has in fact been how things have been done for many centuries.
I’d like to think we’ve finally gotten past such behavior - that democracies remove the grips of power from those with money. Honestly though, rich people get elected, rich people with corporate connections who can pander to interest groups.
So, while I am attempting to sit on the fence still, I will admit that something stinks… even if it is all coincidence, which many people don’t believe in, it still stinks.[/quote]
I would love to be wrong myself. It’s just such a weird thing when you finally see something for what it really is you suddenly have this burden of guilt for not at least pointing it out.
The average person can’t possibly know what it’s like to have access to billions of dollars and the means to aquire it. If the oil companies and defense contractors are raking in those kinds of profits do you think that they are in any hurry to end the occupation?
If I were to expand on that thought, if this war really was about profits, would you actually DESIGN it to be over swiftly or would you ignore pre-war intelligence so that it would drag out for a long period of time?
We’ve already seen drug companies and the FDA knowingly put drugs on the market that they absolutely knew for sure had deadly side-effects before going to market! They said the deaths directly contributed to Vioxx alone could be over 30,000.
These people do not think like us at all. The real question would be, would you kill someone for a billion dollars if it was unlikely you’d ever be caught? The politically correct answer would be no. (but I’d rather not have to test myself)