YOUR TAXES. THEIR WARS. (Their Oil).

[AchesonIntellig]

YOUR TAXES. THEIR WARS. (Their Oil).

They attack the oilcountries; they kill the people; they sieze control of the oil...

You pay for it with your taxes; soldiers and civilians pay with their lives; we all pay for it, with the increased hatred, instability and terrorism that are CAUSED by the so-called "war on terror".

The only winners are the super-rich political elite, with their dirty, bloodstained fingers in the oil and weapons industries.

It makes no difference who you vote for. Nobody gets into power without funding from the most powerful donors and lobbyists in the world: the oil lobby, the arms lobby, the Israel lobby. You can't compete with their money or their massive network of corruption.


After spending $billions of YOUR MONEY attacking Afghanistan & Iraq in order to sieze their oil, the British & American governments now want more of your money to fund and extend their crime-spree. Iran and Syria are next. Taxes in Britain and the United States will continue to rise as a result as they spend more of our money on more of their wars.

The Centgas oil pipeline, planned for Afghanistan long before September 11, is now going ahead, thanks to September 11 and the war on terror. Hamid Karzai, the new US puppet leader in Afghanistan, helped plan the oil pipeline when he worked for US oil company Unocal, part of the Centgas consortium. Eleven countries forewarned the U.S. about the attacks. The FBI were watching the terrorists, who were known to be training as pilots. But the investigation was blocked at high levels. The U.S. oilgovernment said they needed regime change for the Centgas oil pipeline. After 9-11 they got that regime change. Many thousands more people died in Afghanistan than died in the Twin Towers. But their deaths were of no use to the U.S. propaganda machine. They were "unpeople".

"Operation Iraqi Liberation" (OIL) was declared officially over as soon as the oilfields were secure. Siezing the oilfields was the very first objective of the Operation Iraqi Liberation (OIL) groundwar. It was in fact the only real objective of attacking Iraq. Again, regime change in Iraq was planned before 9-11. Again this was openly for oil reasons at the time. No Iraqi had any links to al-Qaida before Iraq was attacked (Although for some reason most Americans think otherwise). Now, thanks to the oilwar, terrorists from all over the world are flooding into Iraq.

Bush's response to attacks on American troops was: "Bring 'em on!"


IRAQ HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH SEPTEMBER 11! MOST OF THOSE RESPONSIBLE WERE FROM SAUDI ARABIA - WITH WHOM THE U.S. GOVERNMENT STILL TRADES OIL & WEAPONS!

There were NO TERRORISTS IN IRAQ - until Iraq was attacked.

More Iraqi children have been killed PER MONTH by US-led sanctions alone than there were people killed in the entire September 11 tragedy. Innocents are still dying as a result of the illegal US-led invasion of Iraq.

Thousands more innocent women and children were killed in Afghanistan by American attacks on civilians in civilian areas.

But these deaths do not help justify U.S. foreign policies in the media so their deaths go largely un-noticed.

The American & British governments are insulting us when they denounce Saddam's human rights abuses. Both governments funded and armed Saddam, before, during and after he gassed both Kurds and Iranians.


Iraq may have retained some of their WMD - which the U.S. government sold to them during the Iran-Iraq war. If so, then attacking Iraq has proved Iraq was not prepared to use WMD and hence was not the threat we were misled to believe they were. But the war has enabled terrorists to access any weapons that were still there.

"No WMD in Iraq" say the people looking for them:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3135932.stm


The Oil Wars:
http://www.thedebate.org/

In order to consolidate their control over global oil markets, the businessmen who fund and control the U.S. oilgovernment now plan to extend their oilwar (which already amounts to the biggest armed robbery of all time). Attacking opponents of Israel's illegal & bloodthirsty American-funded occupation also strikes a blow for Israel. It was American Zionism that gave birth to the threat of anti-Western terrorism in the first place...

Explaining Arab Anger:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/middle_east/newsid_1552000/1552900.stm


IRAN and SYRIA will soon be attacked and robbed of their oil interests too. Excuses, reasons and justifications will be found or faked. they may fabricate more intelligence. They may let another big terrorist outrage slip by. A few thousand more civilian casualties-of-war are entirely acceptable to these safe, rich oilmen. They justify the bloodshed to eachother by claiming that their country relies on that oil. But war is just business to them. They all have tight ties to the oil and defense industries and they all profit from the slaughter of men, women and children on both sides.

Oil & The Bush Cabinet:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/americas/newsid_1138000/1138009.stm

Bush & Big Business
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/americas/newsid_1306000/1306777.stm

They take your taxes to pay for their crimes. But it's not just your money, it's your life that is at risk. It is not just the lives of soldiers and civilian war victims that are being spent by the oil industry, for the arms industry, and for Israel. The "war on terror" is pushing more and more people into hatred and extremism. It is uniting terrorists and attracting militants. Far from driving them out, the oilwars are attracting terrorists INTO places like Afghanistan and Iraq, from all over the world. The so-called "war on terror" has become a huge recruiting & fundraising campaign for extremists and militants. It is increasing the threat to everybody. All this so that a few super-rich people can make even more money from selling oil and weapons to everybody.

Their greed is infinite. They are already unimaginably wealthy, but they will continue to send good men - under-equipped, under-paid, under-supported, under-respected men - to die and to kill, for oil, for weapons sales, and for Israel. The whole machinery of intelligence and the military can now enjoy increased funding and influence as they create ever more instability and then scare the public half to death about it.

Your taxes will continue to rise as a direct result of THEIR wars for THEIR profits and THEIR Zionism. They lied and tricked many of us into supporting their murder. They and their friends are making $billions from murder, terrorism and instability, while you are paying for the whole show with your taxes. $billions of American taxes also arm Israel's violent and illegal occupation of Arab land.

Is the whole Anglo-American political establishment entirely riddled with corruption & greed?

If so, is it not time for change?

[NetxMan]

So, how do we fix this problem?

[James]

Seems like Bush has pushed pretty hard to LOWER taxes...

And I would like to see more about when Bush said "Bring 'em on!" I find that hard to believe. And you need to study a little bit more before you decide that this whole war was about oil, and get some of you facts right.

[JD3]

I am not a fan of this war. And I agree Bush has done little to discourage the rational of it being about the oil. In fact, he even gives the look of impropriatity by giving a no-bids contract to Hallaburton.

Still, others were involved in the decision making process who have less concerns about oil profits. It is more than fair to point out that there were and are other concerns.

It is too simple to meerly pass this off as American greed. Bush may naturally lean towards oil profit idealogy, but this wasn't formost on his mind. I am convinced of that much.

[NetxMan]

Bush, could care less about oil.

[James]

ehh, I wouldnt say that. I think everybody cares. When you fill up your car with gas and your charged way more money then you should be charged, I think that you would care.

Weather he would base a war on oil is a WHOLE different story! I totally disagree with that.

[JD3]

. . . Iraq invaded Kuwait in the first place? Kuwait was lowering prices and keeping Iraq from getting the money Saddam thought he needed? So he went to war.

Just background infomation: He did tell American Ambassador Arpril Gilepse his plans. She replied with a very firm "we have no interest in border conflicts among Arab nations." Remember, Saddam was our man in the middle east and we did give him weapons to fight Iran. Now she did clearly state later that she never thought he'd take that as our approval.

But nations do fight war over oil. I just don't believe that is what we are doing here.

[NetxMan]

That is what I am saying. I don't think Bush "invaded" anything. He went to war, and it wasn't for oil.

[JD3]

. . . that Iraq did not invade Kuwait? They just went to war?

I think when you enter another country, uninvited, and start shooting at folks, you are invading. Congress, for the record, did not declare war. They did cave and give Bush the authority to do what he wanted. What Bush wanted was to INVADE Iraq. He called it preemptive attacks.

A rose by any other name is still an invasion.

[NetxMan]

Invade
To enter by force in order to conquer or pillage.
dictionary.com

[JD3]

. . . that we didn't enter by force or that we didn't conquer? I'll forgo the pillage claim. But when you dethrone a ruler, aren't you conquering? And if you use weapons, aren't you using force?

Do you dispute this?

[AchesonIntellig]

IRAQ WAS NO THREAT
Former Senior Government Minister Admits:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3164948.stm

Tony Blair knew Iraq had no weapons that presented a real threat - former foreign secretary Robin Cook.

If Blair knew, Bush knew too.

Afghanistan and Iraq: lies and wars for oil and Israel.


SYRIA AND IRAN ARE NEXT.

Israel attacks Syria:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3165394.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3164380.stm

Could this be an attempt to provoke Syria and Iran into military retaliation, facilitating the extension of the American-Israeli oilwars?

(If so, guess who gets to pay with taxes and terrorism.)

[NetxMan]

Originally posted by JD3
. . . that we didn't enter by force or that we didn't conquer? I'll forgo the pillage claim. But when you dethrone a ruler, aren't you conquering? And if you use weapons, aren't you using force?

Do you dispute this?

You are freeing a country.

[JD3]

Does that change the meaning of the word?

And will you argue that we need to free the Chinese? The North Koreans? The Rwanadans? Who do we free and when do we cross the line and become the American Imperalists that Pat Buchanan claims we now are?

[AchesonIntellig]

ALL AMERICA'S FAULT?

The U.S. government funded and armed both Iran and Iraq, including with WMD. They still fund and arm Israel and Saudi Arabia. All of the dangers in that region and the resulting terrorist threat to the West have stemmed from U.S. government policy.

Explaining Arab Anger:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/middle_east/newsid_1552000/1552900.stm

The U.S. helped create Saddam's regime. And the Taleban in Afghanistan. And the Mojahidin terrorist training camps there that gave birth to al Qaida. The U.S. is responsible.

Removing Saddam has made the international situation more dangerous, not less. His removal has had no effect on terrorism because Saddam's regime had no known links to terrorism before Iraq was attacked.

Iraq has still not accounted for masses of WMD that America had sold to them. UN inspectors were in the process of accounting for them. The UN were not allowed to complete their task. They could not be allowed to because that might jeopardise the Iraq oilwar.

The U.S. were going to attack Iraq and sieze the oilfields, killing thousands of innocent civilians in the process. The threat of terrorism, which the U.S. government created, made the oilwars possible.

Even if they did still have some of America's botulinium toxin and other agents, Iraq posed not threat unless they were attacked according the the CIA. They were certainly incapable of delivering WMD outside Iraq. Any WMD that were in Iraq are now in the hands of terrorists thanks to U.S. aggression. Those terrorists are now angrier than ever. There are more of them too. Thanks to the oilwars the world is a far, far more dangerous place than it would have been with 10 Saddam's in charge of 10 oilcountries.

Iraq was controlled by a mass-murdering lunatic. But so are many other countries. Israel, Zimbabwe and Saudi Arabia are all host to oppressive and tyranical regimes. But they are not attacked because it would not further U.S. oil-interests at present. In fact Saudi Arabia was perhaps more responsible for 9-11 more than any other country other than the U.S. But the U.S. is still selling weapons and buying oil there.

America and its allies operate a very limited aid program - TO SHOW THE TV CAMERAS THAT THEY ARE HELPING PEOPLE OUT OF A MISERY THAT AMERICAN ATTACKS CREATED IN THE FIRST PLACE. U.S.-led sanctions prevented so-called dual-use items including food and medicine (much of which was past its useful date by the time it arrived). 10 years of American bombing has now helped the Iraqi people.

It was not Saddam that destroyed Iraq, it was the U.S. Iraq was a sophisticated country, the birthplace of civilisation and home of mankind's first ever city.

Prompted by allied military forces the Western media picked up on one boy with no arms. They claim to have saved him... Saved him from who?! It was U.S. attacks that crippled him in the first place! Thousands more childrens' stories have not become so well known. One suffering child being helped by U.S. soldiers makes good propaganda. Thousands of dead, maimed, impoverished children do not.

U.S. forces are killing more civilians in Iraq almost daily. Including children. ITN reporter Terry Lloyd was murdered when a civilian convoy was attacked and wounded for example. U.S. forces returned to attack the clearly-marked ambulence, killing the journalist.


The oilwars have killed more people than all the terrorist attacks in history put together.

If you add up all the civilian and military casualties on both sides in the Afghanistan War and the Iraq war, including the deaths caused by TEN YEARS of U.S.-led sanctions AND ten years of constant bombing, the death toll is many times the total death toll of every attack that history records as an act of terrorism.

Think about it: the September 11 attacks were the most disasterous terrorist act in history. Less than 4000 were killed.

In THIS LATEST IRAQ WAR ALONE:

(Even excuding the massive casualties in Afghanistan, even excluding military casualties on BOTH sides, even excluding the years of sanctions, excluding the years of bombings... even excluding all of that)...

The CIVILIAN-ONLY body count for the latest attacks on Iraq stand at 7,376 (minimum) (9,178 maximum):

http://www.iraqbodycount.net/

That's around twice as many civilian dead alone, as a MINIMUM, than there were civilians killed on September 11 2001.

When you add on all those anonymous innocents butchered in Afghanistan and then military deaths - on BOTH sides - the number rises almost exponentially. Factor in the U.S.-led sanctions and a decade of U.S. bombing and you start to see the horror of America's holocaust. The "war on terror" is worse than every act of terror in history.


The U.S. government created the threat. They arm and fund Israel's illegal occupation, hence the hatred. They have created, supported and armed hostile regimes and terrorists, giving rise to the danger of terrorism. Now the situation is getting much, much worse. Still worse is yet to come.

[JD3]

. . . A little knowledge is a dangeous thing.

I sense you are serious and concerned, for that alone I am impressed. However, as wrong as I think some of what you submit is, it isn't the full story nor is it framed in proper context. We made mistakes in that region. Are first attempts at help Iran and leaving the crul Shaw of Iran in power led to the overthrow and US personnel being held Hostage. Still, we had some good intentions and you can't skip that part.

And you can't ignore a real concern over terror and the region. I don't agree with the approach, but it isn't evil nor is it criminal.

[gopman]

It seems to me that the president is doing exactly what the people need him to do. Our tax money is meant to be spent on defense of our lives and our freedoms, among a few other things. By eliminating a tyrannical dictator who has killed americans in the past and violated countless international laws, he helped to guarantee the safety of everyone in America and indeed the world. I would much rather see my money spent in this fashion than on policies restrictive to business and free trade such as universal health care (but that is for another discussion).

[JD3]

I want to make sure you aren't connecting Saddam to 9/11. The president has already said that wasn't so.

This guy wasn't a threat. The country couldn't even defend itself. David Kay has already ruled out any active nuclear program. He was contained, and the international law he broke was and is a matter for the UN. There are more serious threats in the area -- Iran and North Korea. There are countries with more accurate links to terrorist -- Saudia Arabia, Iran, Syria, and Kuwait. He was a secular dictator whose only goal was to stay in power. The terrorist are for the most part religious fantics who hate and attack for religeous reasons. There is a major difference.

No, the president has persuded the wrong policy and has misused his trust and the good will we had internationally. He oversold the war and now can't make any of his claims stick, which is hard since he used the say anything rationale. Sooner or later something has to stick.

I don't mean to be insulting in anyway. I respect difference of opinion, but this is the most harmful policy I have seen in years. Peemptive attacks, more actually called invasions, are a bad idea and I do believe that it has encouraged nuclear proliferation. And that doesn't make the world safer. It doesn't make us safer. Terrorist are criminals who have no national ties. We cannot fight them by attacking countries.

[gopman]

I believe that you are totally incorrect when you say that terrorists have no national ties. No one disagrees with our war with Afghanistan, this is evident in the takeover by NATO of the country. We never attacked that country because the Taliban was a threat to America in and of itself, but because it was known to harbor terrorists. Iraq also harbored terrorists, a fact not often mentioned. American troops destroyed one of the largest terrorist camps in the world in Northern Iraq. Sadaam knew about these terrorists and supported them financially and with weapons. No one can deny the huge caches of small arms and shoulder-fired missiles that have been found in that country. Destroying Sadaam's regime certainly improved our national security.

As for North Korea and Iran, different countries should be approached in different ways. If North Korea has nuclear weapons like they claim, then we cannot solve the problem through war, we must solve it exactly as Bush is- diplomatic pressure. After 10 years of diplomacy, Iraq still defied the UN and endangered the United States. We still have a chance to deal with Iran through diplomatic means and solve the problem without further bloodshed. Bush is also preventing future terrorists in Africa by providing them with 15 mil. in AIDS support, but i guess i'm getting off topic.

If going to war to protect our national security makes us less popular in the UN, and I don't believe it has to the extent that alot of people believe (Chancellor Schroeder has openly reconciled with Bush), then so be it. Those nations don't fully understand our situation as they have never been the victim of such devastating attacks as we have.

[JD3]

If you followed the events as they happened, our first demand was that Afganistan turn over Bin Lauden. If they had done that, we'd have left them alone. Much in the way that WMD became WMD programs for the administration, the administrationed focussed on the training camps. The truth is that those camps are to be found in all those countries. Including Saudi Abrabia. We don't attack them becasue they are our allies. You can find these training camps all around the world. We've even found some here.

And there were people who objected to Afganistan. But the proximity to 9/11 gave us a certian grace period in the world. And there was a much stronger case to made that terrorist activity was in fact taking place there. Saddam, being a secular dictator had squelched much of the relgious fantics that run such things. You had to go to the Kurdish north, fierce opponents of Saddam's, to fine a training camp.

Our situation doesn't make it right or ethical to attack or invade countries at our whim. Evidence and not speculation must be provided. We now know that there was no nuclear program, just a hope to have one. There was no link to 9/11. Any reported link to Al Quedia has credibilty problems. You would have to think some WMD's would be found, after all he needed them to stay in power. But at a mimimum the White House's claim that hey knew right where there were was incorrect. Add that to the fact that terrorist are still killing Americans and we have spent billions, I have grave concerns that this was a wise and prudent move. And I thought that was evident from the beginning.

And it should be pointed out that Saddam wouldn't have attacked America for the same reasons these other countries wouldn't. It would be suicide. It is the PR team that the Kuwaiti givernment hired and misinformation that leads us to think he was insane. He was brutal and ambitious, not insane.

[gopman]

You say that if Afghanistan had cooperated with the US, we would have left them alone, well, Saddam didn't cooperate for ten years.

You say that Saddam had no ties to terrorists; in fact, you seem to incinuate that he opposed them. This is obviously not true, as it was obvious that Afghanistan harbored terrorists including Bin Laden. It isn't just the existence of the camps that suggest Saddam supported terror. He funded them and knowingly allowed them to operate in his country. To suggest that a brutal dictator with an airtight regime had terrorist groups that he opposed operating right under his nose is insane. Saddam has admitted connections to Palestinian terror groups, so why would you assume that he is not connected to others? As you mentioned, He isn't insane, he wasn't openly connected to Al-Qaeda, but he was certainly connected. Evidence includes the terrorist camps, the small arms that were not connected to his military, the hidden funds, and traffic of terrorists between Palestine and Afghanistan. Iraq's pursuit of nuclear weapons constitutes a program. And don't forget the nuclear equipment that was found buried in the backyard of an Iraqi scientist. Also mobile biological weapons labs were discovered. A decision had to be made to protect the American people, and the decision made by President Bush was the best one.

Men like Saddam seek to expand their power, not just maintain it. That is why he attacked Iran and Kuwait. That is why he supported terrorism to weaken the United States.

Whether other countries have and support terrorist camps has yet to be determined, and those countries will be dealt with on an individual basis. The reason we do not attack countries like Saudi Arabia is that they have been reasonably cooperative, unlike Iraq and Afghanistan.

[gopman]

Sorry, I had to break this one up into two.

Since the war in Iraq, terrorist capabilities to attack American soil have been dramatically reduced. Not only that, but we have freed a people who were dying of starvation at a rate that exceeded the American casualty rate of the first Gulf War. We have brought some stability to the region. We now have another ally in the most hostile area of the world. The "huge" amounts of money spent on all defense, including Iraq and Afghanistan, represents less than 1% of the GDP. Remember at points in the cold war, defense accounted for as much as 20%. The loss of American lives is a tragedy, but it will end soon. The terrorism supported by Saddam would not have. There is no reason to believe that what the United States did in Iraq was unwise.

[JD3]

Of course these people knew each other, but you argue, as the president does, that since we have no proof it must be so. He had no more and perhaps less connection than those around him. Americans want to believe. I understand that. But the sad fact is, no proof has been presented and none has been asked for.

All arguements made against Saddam concerning terror fits his neighbors better. It has been widely reported that the royal family of Sadi Arabia meet with Bin Lauden the day before and the day after 9/11. We have asked nothing from them in terms of accountability.

And the terrorist as far as I can see haven't been effected in any real way. The administration has said that they can't stop a mad man with a bomb and that no matter who they take out, someone else will take his place. The whole rationale is lacking.

The only thing you said that I agree with is that the embargo needed to stop. It wasn't hurting Saddam and it was hurting the people. I wish the president had concentrated on that arguement instead of so openly overselling the war. He lost credibilty everwhere because he was less than truthful. Misleading and overselling is the equivenlant of a lie.

[gopman]

It is sound logic to say that Saddam knew what was going on in his country because of his regime with secret police and informants. In combination with his history with terrorists, his secret funds, and the small arms caches, it is also stronger than any argument that one may provide that he did not know about or support terrorists.

We have questioned the credibility of the Saudi Arabian leaders, and they have been relatively cooperative. This stance with the west has brought terrorist attacks to their own nation. It doesn't make sense that terrorists would attack a country that gives them support. That is one of the reasons why we are allies with Saudi Arabia, and not Iraq, Iran, Syria, and Palestine.

Don't forget that the President has access to intelligence that can't be given to the public for safety reasons. That is one of the reasons why we elect an executive to make our decisions for us.

[NetxMan]

"to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs, and its military capacity to threaten their neighbors. Their purpose is to protect the national interests of the United States..."

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow."

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security."

I love these I am glad the Administration felt this way.

[JD3]

Saddam had no nuclear program. David Kay said he wanted one. He didn't have one. I want a billion dollars. I don't have it and won't get it.

Iraw wasn't exactly rouge. They asked our permission to invade Kuwait. Either on purpose or accidently we mislead him. Ambassodor Arpil Gilispe admitted that she told him we had no interest in Kuwait. She just didn't think he'd take that as permission. Dictators have a hard time backing up. Some one will overthrow them if they show weakness. he was in a hard place.

Agin, no such evidence. Just conjection. The CIA said before the war that "we have no credible evidence that Saddam has any weapons of mass destruction." So far, it doesn't exsist.

I have suspected that he had some. I think we helped him get them when he was fighting Iran for us. But no evidence has been presented yet. But don't worry, the 600 million David Kay is asking has to buy something.

And if Saddam or any other country attakced us, they'd be dust before the day was over. Only a lunitic does that. But we have provem that they had better have nuclear weapons or we will invade. Under our theory, all those countires have every right to attack us becasue they KNOW we might attack them.

The logic is poor and makes the world less safe.

[ScummyD]

What planet are you living on? You need to introduce yourself to reality and the facts.
If we went to war in Iraq for oil how come we didn't just seize and maintain control of Iraq's oil fields in the first Gulf War over a decade ago?
You are completely failing to realize the gravity of the situation in Iraq and the larger implications.
Iraq didn't attack us on 9-11, but Saddam Hussein is a terrorist and funds, or funded, the families of Palestinian suicide bombers who attack our ally Israel.
Saddam Hussein did possess WMDs and continued in his quest to do so up until we invaded.
Why can't you look at the facts and accept them?
This is America's War on Terror. We were attacked on 9-11 in case you forgot, and we have not suffered another attack since the start of the War on Terror. The terrorist were mad at us to begin with, who the hell cares?
They will saw your head off just like they did Daniel Pearl's.

[ScummyD]

Hey Joe, have you read David Kay's report or Colin Powell's presentation at the U.N.? The mountain of evidence supporting the fact that Saddam Hussein had and continued to pursue more WMD's is the size of Everest. Facts are facts.

[gopman]

To compare the United States to Saddam's regime is rediculous. By that logic, nations have nothing to fear from the US unless they pose a threat to us. I also think it is unfair to question David Kay's integrity. It's been less than six months- they will find weapons eventually. It is undeniable that he had them and used them, and he's been hiding them for 10 years. Even in the unlikely case that no weapons or programs are ever found, there is still, as scummyd put it, "a mountain of evidence," including known support of terrorists.

Support that Saddam openly admitted.

Remember, no one ever said that the nation of Iraq would attack us directly, we said that they supported terrorists, exactly like the taliban.

Every nation in the world admits that we are better off without Saddam.

[NetxMan]

Originally posted by NetxMan
I love these I am glad the Administration felt this way.

An interesting fact, I got these quotes from the Clintons. Double Standard? I think so.

[NetxMan]

You know what I find funny, we wouldn't even be in this debat if Clinton pulled the same thing, it would have been the best thing that ever happen to man. If he did it, we would be hearing the truth from Iraq, no all the doom and gloom we hear on the news everyday. I haven't heard one positive story from the major media outlets, yet more positive has happned than negative.

[JD3]

Wrong thinking is wrong thinking no matter who does it. You err to think I would simply support something because Clinton did. I voted for Bob Dole. But misleading is misleading no matter how you add it up or who you support or what your political affliation is.

And the media will always report the problems more than they report the successes, domestically and internationally, because that is what sells. No one stops to watch traffic successfully move down the highway. We stop to see the accident.

Besides, being successful over there doesn't make the action itself right. We kicked the rear of a third world country, we are spending somewhere around 166 billion plus, and our troops are the best in the world. I would expect some success. I am worried not about the success, but the ethics and the problems.

[NetxMan]

No we aren't spending 166 billion plus I don't know where you get your numbers but your wrong. And 80 billion of the money that we spent was what we normally pay the Military, something you don't hear in the media. They just like to add it all up to make it look worse.

[JD3]

We are paying to have the troops over there. We are paying more to the guard, shipping equipment, and the costs of keeping troops deployed. Otherwise, you have a point.

But the cost isn't over yet either. And our resources are not limitless.

[gopman]

Defense spending represents <1% of the gross domestic product. At points in the cold war, it was as high as 20%. The american economy can very easily handle this war.

Ethically, remember how many people were killed every day by Saddam, remember how many others were oppressed, and remember how many others, including you and I, were threatened.

[JD3]

Threatened by Saddam. Saddam was, is and never will be a threat to us. Interantional organizations with no national ties will continue to harass us. They don't fear death. They could cre less about governments or democracy. They want a world they can't have and will continue to fight us in this way no matter how many countries we invade. And they can get WMDs from anyone, including us I might add.

And we do not make a habit of stopping brutal dictators. In fact, if they are on our side (Saddam and China for a couple of examples), we are more than willing to ignore them.

This war is wrong and illogical. And it doesn't take much to see it.

[gopman]

Again you say that terrorists have no national ties, so I will reiterate why that is not true, specifically as it relates to Saddam's Iraq.

Saddam ran an airtight regime with secret police and paid informants. Nothing happened in his country that he didn't know about, including the operation of one of the largest terrorist camps in the world. Since Saddam destroyed anything in his country that threatened his regime, and he didn't didn't destroy them, then he considered him friendly.

America found hidden funds when it invaded. Since Saddam admitted to funding terrorists in the past, and since he had no reason to hide funds that were being used for legitemate purposes, they had to either be going to terrorists or weapons which would eventually go to terrorists.

If we can take power away from the terrorists in the form of money and weapons, then we are safer.

If the United States made mistakes in the past by supporting dictators, then we should learn from those mistakes rather than stubbornly repeating them.

[JD3]

He had real trouble controlling the Kurds. Much went on he didn't control.

He destoryed anyone close enough to kill him. He was always worried because there were people wanting to kill and/or overthrow him.

But there is no evidence of him being involved in terrorism anymore than any other country there. It just isn't so. In fact the evidence is stronger for the other countries in the area. Saudi Arabia has strong ties to Al Queda. And we don't really care.

There is simply nothing that singles Saddam out. If you take away his invasion of Kuwait, he is our ally with everything he has now. Remember he was invading Iran for us.

With Kuwait, it is simply a UN matter and not an American matter. You and others have been misled. The administration it self supports what I am saying. They report that there was no connection to 9/11. They report that any evidence to links to Al Quedia is weak. They tell you that he only wanted (David Kay) a nuclear program. That puts him light years behind his peers in the region. The administration told us that they knew right where the weapons were. They didn't. The war was clearly oversold. Claims were embelished. And this is unethical. It will lead to future problems because the ground work has now been laid that any country can attack and invade any country just on suspicion. And we can legitimately be invaded by any country that thinks we might someday be a threat. We haev set the bar there. It is a bad idea. It is unethical.

[gopman]

SADDAM ADMITTED TO FUNDING TERRORISTS

[gopman]

remember what he did to the kurds? he gassed them.

The president didn't just make up a bunch of lies because he had some personal desire to go to war. He made a decision based on the evidence. A better decision than waiting for more americans to be blown up

[gopman]

"We Have Discovered Dozens Of WMD-Related Program Activities And Significant Amounts Of Equipment That Iraq Concealed From The United Nations During The Inspections That Began In Late 2002." (David Kay, Statement On The Interim Progress Report On The Activities Of The Iraq Survey Group, 10/2/03)

For more info read his report.

[NetxMan]

The Los Angeles Times reports soldiers from the 2nd Battalion, 23rd Regiment found what appears to be a large-scale terrorist training camp for the Palestinian Liberation Front, as well as documents indicating Iraq recently sold weapons to the terror group for its fight against Israel.

"This proves the link between Iraq and terror groups," the Times quotes Capt. Aaron Robertson, the battalion's intelligence officer, as saying.

According to the paper, the 25-year-old hidden compound could have accommodated 600 recruits at one time.

Its 20-plus cement buildings contain an obstacle course, parade deck, lecture halls, dining halls, barracks, administrative offices and small jail cells likely used to teach students how to survive as a prisoner of war.

The obstacle course is described as being better than some used to train American forces.

Uniforms, books and bomb-making materials were found inside the largely abandoned facility, along with a clay table-top model of a city, which the Times likens to those used by military officers in planning an attack. Intelligence officers were studying what city the model's design was meant to replicate, according to the paper.

Marines also recovered documents from the PLF and its political arm, the Palestinian Liberation Organization.

Large murals of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein cover the walls on the outside, while side-by-side pictures of Hussein and PLF leader Abu Abbas fill the walls inside. Other photographs showed Abbas posing with senior officers of the Iraqi Republican Guard.

Slogans on walls linked the PLF and Iraqi causes, including one that, in Arabic said, "Live the Dream of Both Causes Against the Invading Enemy: the Jew."

"Beginning In This Prison Is The Flower of Our Manhood," another read.

The camp is due east of the Diallo River on the southwest edge of Baghdad, set away from main roads and surrounded by berms and large trees.

[NetxMan]

Outfitted with electricity, running water, air-conditioning and a sewer system, the facility is described as having better conditions than nearby residences.

The U.S. has long insisted regime change is needed in Iraq because it allegedly has weapons of mass destruction and harbors terrorists.

"Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al-Qaida. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their
own,"

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=31939

[ETCAP]

Originally posted by JD3

But there is no evidence of him being involved in terrorism anymore than any other country there. It just isn't so. In fact the evidence is stronger for the other countries in the area. Saudi Arabia has strong ties to Al Queda. And we don't really care.

There is simply nothing that singles Saddam out. If you take away his invasion of Kuwait, he is our ally with everything he has now. Remember he was invading Iran for us.

With Kuwait, it is simply a UN matter and not an American matter. You and others have been misled. The administration it self supports what I am saying.

When Bush decided to take out Saddam I think that it must have been part of a grander strategy. We couldn't go after Saudi Arabia because of our dependence on their oil. However going after Iraq is an example to SA. I doubt they have as many connections as they used too, thats why they where also bombed. They where being punished. Bush singled out Saddam as part of the axis of evil. Here are a few things that distinguish Iraq.

-Killed his own people
-Violates UN Mandates
-Encourages American Hate
-Funds terrorism (palestine)


I disagree about things being just a UN matter. We are the UN, we all are. Everything the UN does effects us. The Premise that we shouldn't have gone after Iraq because they are "no more" involved with terrorism then another country, is false. It does not logically work out. Not only are there MANY other factors, but the logic is flawed. We should arrest ALL murders BEFORE people who steal. Its a simplistic view of looking at the situation and it doesn't match up to reality

[ScummyD]

Saddam Hussein has terrorized his people as well as the region for two decades. It has been proven with empirical evidence that he aided known terrorists.

By Mohammed Daraghmeh, Associated Press

NABLUS, West Bank — "Saddam Hussein has increased money for the relatives of suicide bombers from $10,000 to $25,000, drawing sharp criticism from Washington."

This is only one published account out of loads more. It is widely known, I thought.

[ScummyD]

The reality of the situation is that Iraq is between two of the largest state sponsors of terror out there: Syria and Iran.
Saddam Hussein had WMDs throughout the 1990's as the U.N. reported continously.
He continued to seek more WMDs and breeched 18 U.N. resolutions, all the while raping, torturing, and slaughtering thousands of his own people.
The larger vision is to establish some sort of democracy in Iraq as a means of helping to stabilize the region.
This will place tremendous pressure on Syria and Iran. Their people will see the Iraqis living peacefully and prosperously and will act to rid the terrorist war lords from their countries and take back their nations from the despots.

[NetxMan]

All this, for nothing, it doesn't matter what Bush would have done. It would have been wrong.

Someone had to be first and it was Iraq. If Bush would have went after Syria, Iran, or Korea first, they would have complained about him not going into Iraq first. And like I stated before, there would have been absolutly no uproar from anyone if it were Clinton(or any other democrat), no protests, nothing. It would have been the greatest thing on earth. Its really rediculous.

[ScummyD]

"If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." "Some day, some way, I guarantee you, he'll use the arsenal." Clinton 1998

[ScummyD]

"Look, we have exhausted virtually all our diplomatic effort to get the Iraqis to comply with their own agreements and with international law. Given that, what other option is there but to force them to do so?' That's what they're saying. This is the key question. And the answer is we don't have another option. We have got to force them to comply, and we are doing so militarily." Tom Daschle – 1998

[NetxMan]

scummyd, you can post a 40 or 50, I have read them all, and remember most of them, coming right out of their mouth. Just strengthens the point I made above. Bush is always wrong in their eyes, and becuase of the liberal media, many Americans feel the same way, because they do not know better.

[JD3]

1st. Saddam killed his own people.

--- So did the leader of Kuwiat. We
put him back in power.

--- So does China.

--- So does Iran.

--- So did the government in
Rawanda. Republicans didn't want
to go there.

2nd. Violates UN resolutions.

---- My point. UN resolution. Not
American resolution.

----- we are not the UN by
ourselves. If the body doesn't
support us, then we are rogue.
That is why Kofi Annon calls us
the biggest threat to peace.

3rd. Bush will always be wrong.

---- I know that is somehow
different from everything is
Clinton's fault, but Bush is
president now. The BUCK does
stop with him.

4th. Encourages American Hate.

--- Wouldn't that fit Bush as well?

5th. Funds terrorism.

--- Along with everyone else?
Doesn't single him out.

6th. Democrates say (who cares)

--- I have not argued that the
democrates handled this right. I
hold them in contempt for not
doing the right thing and
opposing this war.


Not mentioned. It is just plain unethical to attack another country. We make the world less safe. Logically, if we propose that it is correct to invade a country that we THINK is a threat, than any country can attack any other country without proof or provocation. If North Korea and/or Iran had the ability and decided to attack us with nuclear weapons, they would be justified by this doctrine. They have reason to believe that we are a threat. I keep repeating George Will's (a republican) claim that this war has encouraged nuclear proliferation. I think he is correct. This logic is wrong.

[NetxMan]

My whole point about Bush being wrong isn't that he is "right or wrong" it is that in the exact same situation, Clinton would have been right.

UN is a joke.

Everyone hated America anyway. Its called jelousy.

"Unethical to attack another country." You stated in an earlier post that preemtive strikes are unethical also. This idea is childish. Sure come attack us, we don't care. Then we will attack you. If we lived like this the would be more than one Hitler.

[gopman]

So you're saying that since other leaders kill their people, Saddam should be allowed to also? The logic is rediculous. Don't forget that we are dealing with all of those countries on an individual basis. The only option left by Saddam after 10 years was war.

The UN doesn't OWN the United States, and only the US knows what is good for the US. The idea that the actions we take to ensure our own security should be dictated by the economic ambitions of countries like France is rediculous. Talk about ethical, they are the unethical ones.

The Buck does stop with Bush. He is the chief executive, selected by the people to represent the people (don't give me any crap about the 2000 election, he won). He is privy to confidential information and we have to trust that he made the right decision. We don't have to agree with how he carried out his decision, I respect the ideas of others. There is no reason why Bush should have lied to start the war. He received no personal gain.

Bush doesn't go out and preach anti american propaganda while at the same time funding terrorists. People may disagree with and resent the United States, but there is no comparison between Bush and Saddam.

Saddam funds terrorism, which makes him our enemy. After exhausting diplomacy for 10 years, we had to remove him. Just because others fund terrorism doesn't make it acceptable for Saddam, I learned that principle when I was three years old. Those other nations are being dealt with individually.

I hold democrats in contempt for not doing what is right for the country and changing their stance and spinning facts about Iraq in the year before a presidential election in order to get their party in power. Putting political ambition before the good of the people is unethical, and that is one of the reasons why I have so much respect for Bush. He doesn't care how his actions will affect his carrer, he just does what is right.

[gopman]

On the ethics of attacking Iraq, it is ethical to remove a leader who poses a threat to his people, his region, and the world at large. We saved many more lives than were lost, and we stabilized the region, and we brought freedom to the Iraqi people, and we brought security for the US, and we took away probably the largest source of refuge, money, and weapons from terrorist groups. Even with the cost of lives, this war was ethical and worthwhile.

Your logic that N. Korea and Iran would be justified in attacking us is flawed. It is based on the assertion that Iraq did not provoke the United States, which is untrue for reasons I have stated before in this post. Also, by your logic, they would not be justified in attacking us with nuclear weapons. That assertion does not follow from anything in your argument, in fact it is contradictory. Also, you neglected to mention the diplomatic means that were exhausted for ten years. Also, the United States would have to pose a threat to those countries to be justified in attacking us for your logic. The US does not pose a threat to countries that do not threaten us. You could say that they do and therefore the US does pose a threat, but that would be incorrect because the US is engaged in diplomacy with those nations and is obviously not going to attack or fund an attack by another group.

There has been no nuclear proliferation by this war, in fact it has been prevented by taking scientists away from Saddam and destroying his program.

[ETCAP]

1st. Listing off all these countrys that also kill their own people is NOT a reason for not attacking Iraq. Thats as if saying you can't arrest a killer because there is someone else out there somewhere that has killed more people. We attack one, when given the oppertunity, so that it may be an example to all the others. Case in point is the report that NK leader hide in Bunkers during the war because he was scared he would be next.

2nd. Saying that what the UN is completely seperate and we have no buisness there is redicules. The UN is a seperate identity made up of countrys. Its as if saying that what the federal government does is no buisness of the states. If the UN refuses to inforce its own resolutions then it becomes irrelivent and so do the countrys it represents (security council members that is). When we choose to inforce the resolutions ourselves we did so outside of the UN authority (which is not absolute as some tend to think, as is shown) but we did enforce it in the name of the resolutions. Meaning we invaded Iraq for the same reasons the resolutions were passed. We just took it a step further, which the UN should have done itself. Kofi Annon is upset because we undermined his authority, He believes it should be absolute we showed that it isn't.

3rd. I don't get the whole Bush is always wrong thing. I am not going to comment.

4th. No Bush does not encourage hate the same way Saddam does. Bush does not tell people to kill Americans. Bush does not FUND terrorism. Thats what I meant, that Saddam encourages the kind of hate that causes people to kill themselves. Sure some people in Germany or France or at the UN might hate the US because of Bush but it really is jealousy.

[ETCAP]

5th. Agian this whole everyone fuds terroism so we should let Saddam of the hook. If everyone kills someone then is it ok?? So if enough people do something then we can't enforce laws. Its a weird logic. Like I said we had the oppertunity, it fit into a larger strategy, so we singles them out.

It is not unethical to invade a country. WWII is not unethical. If you believe War under any circumstances is unethical you need a reality check. I have heard this stupid we did it so now the whole world is going to do it argument and its stupid. The truth is that they won't. They knows its diffrent for the US. Not because we are special but because we are the only one with the ability. You may say its wrong and cry about it, but thats reality. Yeah the whole superpower thing.

[JD3]

Hitler did attack someone. Makes him different. The argument was why he was singled out. There is no reason to single him out. Yes, it is unethical. The logic is faulty. If you think someone has a gun and you shoot them, you are unethical. Thinking so is not enough.

Saddam was contained. He was in the jurisdiction of the UN. Not American imperailism as Pat Buchanan says. Our action has encouraged nuclear proliferation. We now cannot denounce anyone for invading anyone becasue our standard now is that we don't need proof and that thinking they might one day is enought. this is illogical and wrong.

More when I have more time.

[ScummyD]

Joe you put an awful lot of trust in these tyranical despots. You know they would saw your head off just like they did Daniel Pearl if they had a chance. If the facts justifying the Iraq war aren't enough to sway you then clearly nothing is. Or maybe another 9-11 would be. We have empirical evidence of Saddam's illegal actions, NOT just thoughts. Please examine the historical record!

How may I ask would you, Joe, propose dealing with Saddam? All your arguments lack any grounding in fact or reality and completely ignore the last twelve years of history with respect to Saddam. Facts are facts. Why do you guys continue to defend Saddam???????????????????????????????????/

Saddam Hussein's regime is a grave and gathering danger. To suggest otherwise is to hope against the evidence. To assume this regime's good faith is to bet the lives of millions and the peace of the world in a reckless gamble. And this is a risk we must not take.”
G.W. Bush

On Sept. 11, we were awakened to the fact that America is now vulnerable to unprecedented destruction. That awareness ought to be sufficient to change the way we think about our security and the type of certainty and evidence we consider appropriate.” G.W. Bush

The 1998 Congressional Resolution which "Urges the President to take all necessary and appropriate actions to respond to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs"

Clinton ‘98
What if Saddam Hussein "fails to comply, and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route which gives him yet more opportunities to develop his program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of the sanctions and continue to ignore the solemn commitments that he made? Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction."

[ScummyD]

"Now listen to this: What did it admit? It (Iraq) admitted, among other things, an offensive biological warfare capability--notably 5,000 gallons of botulinum, which causes botulism; 2,000 gallons of anthrax; 25 biological-filled Scud warheads; and 157 aerial bombs. And might I say, UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq has actually greatly understated its production." Clinton 1998

"We have to defend our future from these predators of the 21st century. They will be all the more lethal if we allow them to build arsenals of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them. We simply cannot allow that to happen. There is no more clear example of this threat than Saddam Hussein." Clinton 1998

"Saddam Hussein has already used these weapons and has made it clear that he has the intent to continue to try, by virtue of his duplicity and secrecy, to continue to do so. That is a threat to the stability of the Middle East. It is a threat with respect to the potential of terrorist activities on a global basis. It is a threat even to regions near but not exactly in the Middle East." John Kerry - 98'

"Look, we have exhausted virtually all our diplomatic effort to get the Iraqis to comply with their own agreements and with international law. Given that, what other option is there but to force them to do so?' That's what they're saying. This is the key question. And the answer is we don't have another option. We have got to force them to comply, and we are doing so militarily." Tom Daschle – 1998

“We know from Iraq's past admissions that it has successfully weaponized not only anthrax, but also other biological agents including botulinum toxin, aflatoxin and ricin.” Colin Powell 2003

[JD3]

I put no trust in Saddam. He is simply no different than those around him. In fact he posed less threat because he was contained.

The point is no nation attacked us. The people responsible for that belong to world wide organizations and can pick up and move out of way while we waste our time fighting countries, and those people are still free. The organizations are as strong as ever. We wasted money attacking someone and creating an environment that allows them to what they want to do easier. Kill Americans and hurt us financailly.

No, I don't trust these despots. I merely recognize illogical thinking when I see it. And I do believe it was the democrates in congress who were responsible for being the loyal opposition and to point out these errors. Too few did. And here we are. Stuck. We can't leave now and they will continue to kill Americans and it will continue to cost.

And what have we accomplished? Nothing. If we leave, someone else takes Saddam's place. Freedom can't be given. It must be earned. So freedom there is dependednt on us staying.

What have we accomplished? The world has been encouraged to arm themselves with nuclear weapons. As George Will says," . . .to deal with America, you must now have nuclear weapons."

And what have we accomplished? The world doesn't care for or respect us. And it isn't jealousy. We are now consider by some to be the aggressors and the real threat. By our logic, that means someone should attack us because we might one day attack someone else.

No, this is illogical. This is unethical. And why we really attacked Iraq without waiting for the world to join us, we may never know.

Just a note. No the UN doesn't control America. Hardly. But if you are going to claim it is the UN resolution as a reason, that is the UN's to deal with not us. There was virtually no threat of Iraq attacking us. The evidence all around is weak and circumstancial at best.

[ScummyD]

George Will has a solid point, I agree.
The reason we "attacked Iraq without waiting for the world to join us..." is because if the world would not acknowledge the "real and present danger" Saddam embodied, what with the mountain of evidence, these countries wouldn't act until it was too late! The idea is not that Iraq posed a "threat of Iraq attacking us", as you say, but that they could easily pass along weapons to small units of terrorists who would then attack us.

[ScummyD]

In 1995 “Iraq declared 8500 liters of anthrax. But UNSCOM estimates that Saddam Hussein could have produced 25,000 liters. And Saddam Hussein has not verifiably accounted for even one teaspoonful of this deadly material. And that is my third point. And it is key. The Iraqis have never accounted for all of the biological weapons they admitted they had and we know they had.” Powell at U.N.

Now remember how our nation's capitol was shut down because of a few teaspoons of Anthrax. After 9-11 the critics were harping about not connecting the dots, did they not? Yes they did. Now we are connecting the dots and the same critics are crying foul.

[gopman]

Your argument is based on the assertion that terrorists have no national ties. This has been proven and admitted to be incorrect. Nations like Iraq and Afghanistan were major sources of funding and refuge. Now terrorists are much weaker. Remember, this is the "battle" of Iraq in the "War" on terror.

I don't think terrorist are operating as easily in Iraq with the american army taking their weapons and destroying their camps and killing them.

Do you suggest that the Iraqis are lesser human beings? After their constitution is written and thier infrasturcture stabilized, do you think they will be physically or mentally incapable of governing themselves? According to that logic, we should end immigration because these lesser people will ruin our system.

These nations that are seeking nuclear weapons will have a significantly harder time obtaining them with Saddam gone and a pro American presence in his place. And they were seeking these weapons already, they didn't all of a sudden decide to when America attacked Saddam.

George Bush and all the American servicemen saved countless lives by having the courage to do what no one else would. The defiance of UN resolutions put us in danger and that is why we point to it. We relied on the UN and they failed, so we were forced to act on our own. As I pointed out earlier, we can't allow our security to be governed by nations protecting their own economic interests.

[ScummyD]

"we can't allow our security to be governed by nations protecting their own economic interests." Can you not understand this JD3? The U.N. has rendered itself irrelevent time after time after time.

[NetxMan]

scummyd stop trolling please. We get the point.

But anyway Saddam was not contained if he was paying "Murder Bombers" money everytime they blew themselves up.

Like I said before the UN is a joke, look who sits on there Human rights counsel, countried that don't give a crap about human rights.

That is like you hiring an accountant that can't handle your his own money, to handle yours.

[ScummyD]

You say this war "will continue to kill Americans and it will continue to cost," but what about the lives lost in 9-11, what about that cost?

[JD3]

Saddam not related to 9/11.

The president has said this. Rumsfield has said this. It simply has no relation.

If you want to argue he was a threat to Isreal? Maybe. As for it being proven that he funded, not exactly. Evidence is unclear yet.

There is no arguement that singles Saddam out except that he was easy and we didn't want to take anyone difficult. It hasn't made the world safer. It has made it more dangerous.

I do not know why this is so hard to see.

[KWJams]

Originally posted by JD3
Saddam not related to 9/11.

The president has said this. Rumsfield has said this. It simply has no relation.

If you want to argue he was a threat to Isreal? Maybe. As for it being proven that he funded, not exactly. Evidence is unclear yet.

There is no arguement that singles Saddam out except that he was easy and we didn't want to take anyone difficult. It hasn't made the world safer. It has made it more dangerous.

I do not know why this is so hard to see.

Irag just happens to be right smack dab between Syria and Iran and they also broke the UN Resolutions imposed after the Gulf War.

[NetxMan]

No, your right, he didn't fly a plane into the world trade center, or maybe have anything to directly do with 9/11. But indirectly he supported the effort, harbored terrorist, payed terrorist.

The world isn't more safe?????????

So you condone the slaughter of millions of people, the jailing of children, the rapping of women, the gasing of people?

Please do tell, how it has made it more safe?

[KWJams]

If you want to say that it is more unsafe because it drove the vermin deeper underground and that Saddam has not been accounted for then I may agree with that.

But, overall the world is safer from any threat from Iraq. ;)

[JD3]

It's less safe because we encouraged nuclear proliferation and anti-American sentiment. New faces will now take the place of the ones we have captured and killed and they will be more determined. We didn't justify ourselves properly before hand and gave the appearence of aggression. This will add fuel to the fire of those who spread hate of America. It is important to cross all t's and dot all i's. This administration would not take the time to do so. They said they could not wait for proof. They said they couldn't wait another month, another day. This was incorrect, lazy, and bad policy. Also note that Colon Powell was against this effort. He was the Dove of the bunch. He knew better.

We are less safe.

Nextman, no, not even indirectly. Saddam and Bin Lauden were enemies. They did not work together. Only those out here who won't listen even to the administration make that arguement. I suspect it is because a part of us wants it to be true.

Again, UN resolutions, not American resolutions. You can't enforce another bodies resolutions even if you belong to that body without the consent of the body. To do so makes you rogue.

[NetxMan]

The Los Angeles Times reports soldiers from the 2nd Battalion, 23rd Regiment found what appears to be a large-scale terrorist training camp for the Palestinian Liberation Front, as well as documents indicating Iraq recently sold weapons to the terror group for its fight against Israel.

"This proves the link between Iraq and terror groups," the Times quotes Capt. Aaron Robertson, the battalion's intelligence officer, as saying.

According to the paper, the 25-year-old hidden compound could have accommodated 600 recruits at one time.

Its 20-plus cement buildings contain an obstacle course, parade deck, lecture halls, dining halls, barracks, administrative offices and small jail cells likely used to teach students how to survive as a prisoner of war.

The obstacle course is described as being better than some used to train American forces.

Uniforms, books and bomb-making materials were found inside the largely abandoned facility, along with a clay table-top model of a city, which the Times likens to those used by military officers in planning an attack. Intelligence officers were studying what city the model's design was meant to replicate, according to the paper.

Marines also recovered documents from the PLF and its political arm, the Palestinian Liberation Organization.

Large murals of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein cover the walls on the outside, while side-by-side pictures of Hussein and PLF leader Abu Abbas fill the walls inside. Other photographs showed Abbas posing with senior officers of the Iraqi Republican Guard.

Slogans on walls linked the PLF and Iraqi causes, including one that, in Arabic said, "Live the Dream of Both Causes Against the Invading Enemy: the Jew."

"Beginning In This Prison Is The Flower of Our Manhood," another read.

The camp is due east of the Diallo River on the southwest edge of Baghdad, set away from main roads and surrounded by berms and large trees.

[NetxMan]

Those who try to whitewash Saddam's record don't dispute this evidence; they just ignore it. So let's review the evidence, all of it on the public record for months or years:

* Abdul Rahman Yasin was the only member of the al Qaeda cell that detonated the 1993 World Trade Center bomb to remain at large in the Clinton years. He fled to Iraq. U.S. forces recently discovered a cache of documents in Tikrit, Saddam's hometown, that show that Iraq gave Mr. Yasin both a house and monthly salary.

* Bin Laden met at least eight times with officers of Iraq's Special Security Organization, a secret police agency run by Saddam's son Qusay, and met with officials from Saddam's mukhabarat, its external intelligence service, according to intelligence made public by Secretary of State Colin Powell, who was speaking before the United Nations Security Council on February 6, 2003

* Sudanese intelligence officials sayed that their agents had observed meetings between Iraqi intelligence agents and bin Laden starting in 1994, when bin Laden lived in Khartoum.

[JD3]

proven suspect. They didn't meet in any way to discuss any actions. They live in the same area. They are people of influence. You will note that when we went into Afganistan the people who took over wanted us to leave former leaders alone because they were now not in power. For them, these affliations don't carry the same weight they do for us.

Saddam and Bin Lauden simply didn't work together and the administration knows better than to make the claim, why are they wrong?

I read these claims daily and I read the denouncing of them as well. I have decided to rely on the history of the two and the administrations word. Bin Lauden wanted Saddam dead. This makes it unlikely that they would work together. The administration says they didn't. That works for me.

[JD3]

Would be found in any country in the area. It doesn't single Iraq out. I do not claim this was a good man. Nor that he had issues with Isreal as well as us. But you haven't stopped what was going on. Our allies are doing the same thing. They have training camps in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia and so on. You can't kill your way out of this. Becasue you can't attack every country, you have to be creative and find a new way.

Someone, I forget who, mentioned a larger strategy (I should Look back, but like the president, I get lazy), and I think this is true. Bush has alluded to it a few times.

It goes something like this. We need a successful democracy in the area. We need to build one. Iraq is an easy target and we need a country to transform (I know; I don't know the exact words used). We invade. Throw Saddam out. Build a successful democracy. And the area will mellow and there will be fewer terrorist because there won't be a need for them(As I have said, the leaders of these countries need us a focal point for the anger of the people).

It had nothing to do with 9/11, Bin Lauden, or WMDs. And I think the idea has merit. It was just done poorly. You could easily argue that the sanctions had hurt the Iraqi people more than Saddam. For humanitarian reasons we needed to end this. The UN would have been open to such reasoning. We needed to be patient. He wasn't an immenent threat. We could take our time. Our standing in the world would have increased. We could have held on to the goodwill the world had for us at the time. We could have then with UN support removed Saddam and helped build a model democracy. And the problems presented would have been condemed world wide.

It may still have failed. The only resource they have is oil. But it would have been a better plan. And it wouldn't relied on misleading and overselling our reason for war.

[KWJams]

It is real easy for us to sit back and be critical of the President of being lazy when we do not have all the facts that he has at his disposal.

Calling the action an invasion instead of a liberation is just wrong thinking.

Each day it seems that more evidence is discovered that links the Islamic terrorist networks to Saddam. But if we just selectively pick what we want to acknowledge as being credible evidence then they win.

As far as the U.N. sanctions were more of a threat than Saddam was that is ludicrous.
He was killing them while withholding U.N. food and medical supply's from them.

[MICHEL]

There is no exaggeration in saying that the state of humanity is a permanent state of war, with short breaks presented as "peace," that are mostly filled with social conflicts. The reason for that state of war is that humanity lives under the tacit understanding that contradiction is everywhere and rules the world, and that it is through the conflicts provoked by those contradictions that progress develops. And so we go from one conflict to the next, from personal conflicts to social conflicts inside nations, and military conflicts among nations. That ruling by contradictions is exploited in commercial, industrial, or military actions made imperative in the name of "vital interests" by those who govern the world and are themselves governed by greed, envy, imperialistic desires, and intolerance (especially religious and political, usually also in the names of God and/or Democracy).



email me your thoughts...

[JD3]

Most those bodies were from long ago. An Iraqi was interviewed before the war. He said that what he was most afraid of was that throwing Saddam out would start the killing all over again. Saddam had already killed most of those who were a threat to him. Saddam killed a good number of those people while he was our ally. If it was a liberation, it was one many years too late.

I say it wasn't a liberation because that wasn't the main argument made by the administration. It has been tacked on as an afterthought.

I say that Bush was lazy because, as is well documented, he didn't wait to see if his evidence was credible, nor did he insist on all evidence being followed up on or checked out. And he didn't come before the people with a completely well documented and checked out version of the evidence. Either he was lazy, or he is a lier. Your choice. But the nuclear claims are discredited and the claimed that they knew right where the weapons are is lacking as well.

As for selectively accepting? Well, isn't that what we all do? Look, all evidence must be questioned. On all sides. Note I don't accept that Bush is a war criminal as has been aledged by some. We must hear evidence. Weight it. And make a judgement. I told you the evidence that convinced me. Weight it. And make a judgment.

But please read the whole post. I think there are more interesting ideas expressed there.

[NetxMan]

JD3, in your own words, why did we go to war with IRAQ?

[KWJams]

Just days before the war started there was reports of hundreds of young Kurdish men being taken from the streets and never heard from again.


The media played that up, but for most of us it was about removing a threat to world peace and as a side benefit liberating the people of Iraq.



Do you have all the facts at your disposal to determine that our troops would be at less of a risk if we waited for the weather to get hotter or the Iraqi's to strengthen their defenses? The U.N. Inspectors delayed the process long enough to hide or destroy everything.



I do not follow any party with blind trust accepting what is fact or not. What the rest of the world thinks of our actions is of no concern to me either.
The reason that I have and will continue to support our actions is that hopefully we will not have to fight on our soil.

[KWJams]

Drat,,, my post is not quite in context. :(
I tried to reply within quotes of your post and it was to long so I just deleted the quotes--oh well :)

[gopman]

Don't forget that Saddam was not only murdering his citizens, he was spending thier money on weapons and terrorists rather than food, and more people died every month than were killed in the first gulf war. America was losing more advantages every single day it waited for the international community to react, and an executive decision had to be made. Being the only person in the world privy to all the information, Bush made the right decision. That is obvious now. It will be more obvious when we find the weapons. Remember we have only been looking for less than six months.

[JD3]

Notice the polls. More and more people are doubting him everyday. Die hards are hanging on, but the errors and the logical fallacies are begining to show. Bush is worried and he has even tried to salvage it by putting Rice in charge.

No, this wasn't clear cut. And no, no new proof is being provided. But have no fear. 600 million buys a bit. And I did hear Rice on the radio say that if the David Kays team did not find WMDs, "No was not an option." So I am sure they will turn up soemthing. But the damage is done. Credibility has been compremised. We'll have to see how it unfolds.

[KWJams]

I realize that some folks hate President Bush so much that they gleefully want to see the U.S. look bad just to harm his Presidency.

But for me it is not about who --or what party is office, it is about our country and world security.

[ScummyD]

Joe you say: "We didn't justify ourselves properly before hand"
Read U.N. resolution 1441. It clearly gave us all the justification we needed.
You say: “You could easily argue that the sanctions had hurt the Iraqi people more than Saddam.”
This is really a foolish statement and I don’t have a clue how you can possibly believe this. I would really like to here some support for this assertion.
Then you say: “We needed to be patient. He wasn't an immenent threat. We could take our time.”
We waited twelve long years and 18 resolutions demanding Saddam disarm. Bush haggled with the U.N. for 14 months, if this isn’t patience I don’t know what is!
Nobody in this administration argued war on Iraq because Saddam was an imminent threat! I defy you to prove this. It is simply a distortion of the Bush administration’s case for war. Do a Lexis Nexis search, you will not find anything.
Finally you say: “We could have then with UN support removed Saddam…”
Why do you place some much weight upon the U.N.?
Where was the U.N. when over one and a half million people were slaughtered in Cambodia after we pulled out of Vietnam? Where was the U.N. during the Rhawandan genocide? Where was the U.N. during the ethnic cleansing in Kosovo, a war we entered into without U.N. approval.

[NetxMan]

Hate to say Bush is doing great in the polls. Of course they were higher during wartime. Which also tells us something about what the majority of American people thought about the war.

Compare them to Clintons Numbers in his 3rd year. They are some 6 or 7 percecnt better.

[ScummyD]

And G.W. Bush's poll numbers are higher than his father's or Reagan's were at this point in their terms.
And Joe, the credibility that has been compromised is the U.N.'s, not the U.S.

[JD3]

If I remember, 1441 gave the UN authority, not America. A later resolution gave America legal authority, but it was signed May 22, 21 days after the war ended. That seemed more like a "you made your bed, now lay in it," kind of thing.

The poll numbers I spoke of were not his personal approval, but people's feelings on the war. People do not feel they were leveled with or that any evidence has come forward to justify this action on the whole.

I still maintain the logic is faulty. I may think my neighbor has a gun. I may think he intends to shoot me. He may even have shot a family member once who tried to take him out. But until he actually attacks me, I can't go over and shoot him. I am than the one who will be arrested.

And the idea that we can't afford to wait for proof samcks of fear. If proof isn't the standard, than all we have is what someone thinks. It becomes meer opinion and that can't seriously be the standard. That is weak and unethical.

Attacking without provocation leads to aggression, the same aggression we claim to be against. It makes us hypocritical. The rules can't be that we can be aggressors and others can't. Nor can it be that we can have WMDs, but others can't. Ethics require responsibility and fairness. I admit it; that is a hard road to haul. But it is weak to only have your way in the world.

I love this country. I am proud of our young men and women. They have done an excellent job over there. But the reasoning used for this war was weak and not an example of the courage and leadership we have shown over the years.

[gopman]

If your neighbor was hiring people to attack you and your friends, then you would call the police.

There is no way to say that Saddam didn't provoke the US. We had enough evidence to make the decision to go to war. He admitted to supporting terrorists, and now we have proof that he did. That is the focus of the war, and following that criterion the war was a success.

America can keep WMD's while Iraq and Iran can't because we have never supported any organization of terror or gone to war unprovoked. The world community has trusted us with them. Not that that really means much, based on there recent actions, or lack thereof.

[JD3]

bombers in Isreal? And who else was hiring said bombers? And if I called the police and they took over, could I then just do what I wanted and thought without their permission?

We had next to no evidence. The administrations arguement was and is that we couldn't wait for evidence. If we had evidence or proof it would be too late. And a lot of what they said has proven to be false.

How about Norht Korea? Do they sponsor terror?

Remember people can claim wrong doing against us as well. It doesn't make it so, but the claim can be made. Who decides on the validity of a claim?

[NetxMan]

Good people with good judgement decide.

[KWJams]

Originally posted by NetxMan
Good people with good judgement decide.

And those who are privy to the facts ;)

[JD3]

That we will always be the ones with good people. On the whole I think we do have good people in this country. But we have some stinkers as well.

And facts? The administration is the one saying no proof of a link to Al Qaeda. That Saddam had no link to 9/11. That he only wanted a nuclear program (remember, David Kay works for this administration). That no WMDs have been found. It was our CIA saying publicly that there was no credible evidence that Saddam still had WMDs (this hearing was on C-Span, I think they still have the records). It was our CIA who said if we didn't attack it was unlikely that he'd hand off WMD's because he was more an evil dictator than a religeous fantic.

If our people don't know, who does?

The whole argument was we think he might one day. Wolfiwitz argued that we couldn't wait to have proof. Information was rushed ahead that hadn't been checked or varified. This is all documented and the administration has apologized for some of it. I guess that is why I am so surprised people doubt it. Bush and his people must be wrong.

[gopman]

Saddam admitted to aiding terrorists, and now we have uncovered a camp that proves it. It has only beeen 6 months, there are still plenty of places in the country to look.

Would you prefer that the United States were attacked again before we took any action? Living in Iowa, it may be easier for you to say that. Go to New York or DC. The fact is that Saddam was aiding terrorists and he got what he deserved.

[JD3]

to the reporst of the camp. They are disputed. That is why the administration backed off the claim. These were Kurdish camps and the true propose of them is arguable.

Again, you are not attakcing Al Qaeda. If Al Queada attacked us, you are in the wrong place. This is just a feel good effort that is misplaced.

[EntImp]

Originally posted by NetxMan
Bush, could care less about oil. Could or couldn't? I believe you meant couldn't!

Then you are very mistaken seeing as he has a lot of money invested in the oil industry. Credit to him for screwing up his own oi company that daddy had to arrange to be sorted out with other people buying it off him. He was made to sit on the board though... a hard life isn't it.

[EntImp]

Originally posted by gopman
Saddam admitted to aiding terrorists, and now we have uncovered a camp that proves it. It has only beeen 6 months, there are still plenty of places in the country to look.

Would you prefer that the United States were attacked again before we took any action? Living in Iowa, it may be easier for you to say that. Go to New York or DC. The fact is that Saddam was aiding terrorists and he got what he deserved.

Very much mistaken as there are no facts. Only your beliefs, my beliefs and the propaganda out governments give us.

There is nothing concreke at all linking SH with any terrorist groups.

As for terrorism why were you not bombing Northern Ireland then when the IRA were killing innocent people in the UK? The reaction was to fund the terrorism and give Gerry Adams political weight in the USA to go fund raising and kill more innocent civvilians and democratically voted members of parliment in my country.

Iraq was bombed because it suited Bushes needs, a soft touch, votes, greed in oil and the millitary machine. Bush needed to be seen to do something and this was the mess he created.

[NetxMan]

What mess is that again?

[ScummyD]

Hey Joe how far would you be willing to let SH go before intervening? 1441 did give authority to the U.N. to use force against Iraq. But not only did SH fail to comply with the law but so did the U.N. And so the U.S. acted. The material breech of the resolutions by SH represented a threat to our security. In 1441 the oness is clearly on SH to prove he disarmed and is no longer a threat, he failed.The U.N. passes resolution after resolution without any intention of enforcing them so what the hell is the point?
You know Chamberlain made similar concessions to Hitler. I am not trying to compare SH to Hitler, although a strong case could made, but how far would you be willing to let SH go?
The facts are that SH had WMDs, continued to compile WMDs after the U.N. demanded he destroy them, and continued to pursue and maintain some level of nuclear ambitions. All of which he was forbidden by the U.N. to have.
Again, how far would you let him go Joe?

[ScummyD]

I am continually amazed at the lenghts to which people go in "trusting" SH over Bush. I mean it seems like many opponents just take it on faith that SH wouldn't do us any harm if left alone. The opponents to war in Iraq want a rediculously airtight case for war. These are a lot of the people who rightfully pointed out that we didn't connect the dots pre-9-11. Now we attempt to connect the dots and they are howling louder than an Iraqi torture victim (sorry, couldn't help myself).
At the same time they just assume Bush to be a liar, war monger, and big oil profiteer.
SH violates international laws which the breeching of amount to justification for the use of military force, but Bush "hyped the case for war against SH" the opponents cry.
Gulf War I ended in a cease fire contingent upon SH abiding by the U.N.'s resolutions. SH then proceeds to violate 18 of the damn things over a twelve year period, giving the U.N. the authority to use force but they don't. "And neither should we" cry the opponents.
And the U.S. is supposed to sit back and allow this to happen, to in essence "trust" SH and take him at his word? Sophistry!
In 1998 Congress authorized the president to use force against SH, and the president said "I gaurantee you he will use the arsenal." Just last year Congress again authorized the president to use military force. Why? Because SH was a "real and present danger." Yet we supporters of the War on Terror are supposed to "trust" the opponents that SH is contained and presents no threat to our sercurity. Why all the authorizations to use force against such a docile man then?
It is far easier to believe SH would conspire with terrorists to attack us than it is to believe that he wouldn't. I realize this is no justification for war, but we had all the justification we needed.
Again, we ended our first war with SH with a cease fire, there was no treaty. SH violated this cease fire 18 times, at least, and by doing so legally restarted the war.
But the opponents insist: "there is no evidence, not enough evidence, he has no WMDs, Bush is lying, let the inspectors do their job, SH is contained, we need the U.N., what about the cost, we gave SH the WMDs in the first place, we have WMDS ourselves."
So are we really to trust SH over our own president, even if Bush looks like curious George?
Are we really to trust SH over our intelligence agencies.
Are we really to trust SH over the U.N.

Are we really to believe that this entire war was drawn up by war mongering, profit crazed, big oil republicans down at some lolely Texas ranch? As if going to war has a definite outcome of victory and re-election and wads of money for the president and all his cohorts.

I would submit that waging war is just about the most politically risky endeavor available and is nowhere near a politicians first choice of action, especially with Vietnam permanently ingrained in our minds.

[JD3]

No one trusts Saddam.

The president and other members of the administration have said:

1. No link to 9/11.

2. No credible link to Al Qaeda.

3. Nuclear program only in the I want one stage. Not likely to have one anytimne soon.

4. WMD have become programs for WMD. Sly move, but telling.

This is what the president and the administration has said. I don't think you are calling them liers, are you?

Now the intelligence agency has said many things. Granted.

But among the things they said are these:

1. No credible evidence that Saddam has WMDs now.

2. Unlikely that he would hand over weapons to terrorist unless we attacked. Then he would be threatened and might do it as a last desperate act.

The argument wasn't really that we knew anything or that there was proof of anything. The arguement was that we couldn't wait and find out if one day he might be a threat (Wolfowitz -- "we can't wait for proof. If we wait it might be too late." This logic is flawed. It can be used to justify any action against anyone.

Notice that at no time have I mentioned Saddam. I have in the past given history on the subject, but I haven't claimed that anything Saddam said was true. The president and the administration support my argument. Where we differ is in the logic aplied.

[gopman]

First, in response to an earlier post, it is a concrete fact that camps were found linking Saddam to terrorists. I stated elsewhere that it is naive to think that these are isolated, unorganized groups. If they were, I doubt they ever could have done any sizeable damage to anyone.

That point also answers to some extent the last post. If Saddam wanted nuclear weapons, then he had to be stopped from getting them, it's as simple as that. If he had WMDs or WMD programs, they had to be stopped. I don't want to die because we have to wait for further provocation from a dictator who has been defiant for years. I don't think the people he starved to death on a daily basis wanted to wait either.

[ScummyD]

Originally posted by JD3


The argument wasn't really that we knew anything or that there was proof of anything.
Oh really? We knew nothing and had no proof of anything? We just invaded for the hell of it?
Do you really think we knew nothing and had no proof?
I thought you had agreed that SH was proven to be in "material breech"? But that that didn't justify an invasion because his breeching of resolutions didn't prove he was a threat?
Did I misunderstand your position?

[ScummyD]

"Had it not been for a few little old ladies baffled by the butterfly ballot in Palm Beach, Fla., American foreign policy today would be made by Gore-(Leiberman) instead of the Bush brain trust. Who says God doesn't smile upon the United States of America?"
-Charles Krauthammer

[ScummyD]

Again I ask the opponents to the war in Iraq, Joe, how far would you let SH go before intervening, where would you draw the line?
Joe you say "No one trusts Saddam.'
Well apparently you trust him enough to oppose the war to oust him; you trust that he is not threatening enough to act against him.
As "the world has always been a place governed by the aggressive use of force" R.H.L.III
In Iraq, "There is no avoiding war; it can only be postponed to the advantage of others." Machiavelli

[EntImp]

Originally posted by scummyd
Oh really? We knew nothing and had no proof of anything? We just invaded for the hell of it?
Do you really think we knew nothing and had no proof?
I thought you had agreed that SH was proven to be in "material breech"? But that that didn't justify an invasion because his breeching of resolutions didn't prove he was a threat?
Did I misunderstand your position?

I don't personally believe Bush has the humanitarian issues of anyone at heart. He would have no problem of attacking Iraq to focus many things in his administration. It was a rape of a country to get cheap oil to boost your own economy.

Bush and Blair still cant even get their facts right and have changed there stories so many times it is unbelievable...

Tell me this. Considering the effort the UK added to the war effort why did it Bush make it so that no-1 but American companies can apply for lucrative deals to rebuild the country? Greed and greed is all there was to this war. Why did he sneak through legislation so that no American is culpable for his actions in Iraq... meaning you can set up more Nike/Gap sweat shops like the ones in Asia... treat workers like scum and if they die because health and safety was lacking the company involved gets of scott free.

You know what sickens me... Bush says no way to UN envolvement for a very long time. Now he goes cap in hand to the UN to beg they help and fund the rebuilding. You know what... the UN knows the score and they will not get involved till Bush gets his dirty little grubby hands off Iraq and gives it back to them. Seeing as this is not going to happen... the post war situation is going to suck your economy so dry.

[gopman]

Bush begged for nothing. He gave that piece of crap we call the UN a second chance to prove itself as a legitemate organization, and so far they have done nothing to prove that they are.

The postwar situation is costing the US less than 1% of its GDP. And thats all defense spending included. The economy of the US could handle 20 postwar Iraqs at a time.

Your assumptions about Bush's character aren't exactly a strong enough platform from which to challenge his integrity.

They haven't once changed their argument, they've just highlighted different parts of the one massive argument they initially offered.

[EntImp]

If that is the case why 'its all mine, all mine I tell you!' attitude regarding the investment and company contracts in Iraq?

If that is the case why is it that the USA ranks bottom in the list of industrial countries in terms of aid to the rest of the world?

If that is the case why is your economy so pear shaped?

If that is the case why don't you pay up your subscriptions to the UN that are way overdue?

As for Bush begging, you are surley mistaken, the guy was metaphorically on his hands and knees.

[JD3]

Originally posted by scummyd
Oh really? We knew nothing and had no proof of anything? We just invaded for the hell of it?
Do you really think we knew nothing and had no proof?

We knew he had them in 92. We knew nothing after that. It is Bush's position that he didn't need proof. Wolfiwitz was quite clear that we could not wait for proof, that we had to attack before there was anything. I find this logic disconcerting and unethical.

So, no, we knew nothing. For all we know he did dipose of them but couldn't afford for his enemies to know. So, he walked a dangeous line. But, again, a material breech would be a UN matter and not American matter. That is why the administration is so confusing in there arguements. If the point to the UN resolution as the only reason, they have to admit that broke international law and invaded another country without UN sanction.

So they throw in the claim that they know he had them now; they later chaneg that to weapons programs. He made insinuations that led people to believe their were know connections to 9/11 and Al Quaeda. He has had to clearly state those were false. It is disconcerting, I know. But that is where wer are and that is what happened. I really think the administrations own words are all the proof necessary. I have provided those, but please look them up.

[ScummyD]

JOE YOU SAY, "We knew he had them in 92. We knew nothing after that. "
Not so, because "In 1995, Hussein Kamal, Saddam's son-in-law, and chief organizer of Iraq's weapons-of-mass-destruction program, defected to Jordan. He revealed that Iraq was continuing to conceal weapons and missiles and the capacity to build many more. Then and only then did Iraq admit to developing numbers of weapons in significant quantities and weapon stocks.
Now listen to this: What did it admit? It admitted, among other things, an offensive biological warfare capability--notably 5,000 gallons of botulinum, which causes botulism; 2,000 gallons of anthrax; 25 biological-filled Scud warheads; and 157 aerial bombs. And might I say, UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq has actually greatly understated its production." --Clinton in '98 on the U.N.'s findings in '95

JOE YOU SAY "It is Bush's position that he didn't need proof. Wolfiwitz was quite clear that we could not wait for proof, that we had to attack before there was anything."
We didn't need proof of an imminent threat, that is the argument the administration made, that we could not wait for proof of an imminent threat. Believe me I know what this administration's own words are, as you say. We are talking about my country going to war, I take this very seriously.

JOE YOU SAY "For all we know he did dipose of them but couldn't afford for his enemies to know."
Hey this is his own damn fault. 1441 clearly put the oness on SH to come clean and he failed to do so. That was his last chance and he failed.

JOE YOU SAY "But, again, a material breech would be a UN matter and not American matter."
It was a U.N. matter until they decided to sit on their arse and let SH spit in their face yet again. Then it became a U.S. matter because we were previously at war with SH and he repeatedly violated the cease fire which ended the war, so this justified our use of force against him.

[ScummyD]

Originally posted by EntImp
The USA ranks bottom in the list of industrial countries in terms of aid to the rest of the world?

This statement could not be further from the truth and is 100% false anyway you slice it! I defy you to prove otherwise.

[ScummyD]

Originally posted by EntImp
It was a rape of a country to get cheap oil to boost your own economy.
You know what sickens me... Bush says no way to UN envolvement for a very long time. The post war situation is going to suck your economy so dry.
Again, with all due respect. This is getting a little ridiculous. All you have said here is complete ****e!
For the record my gas has not gotten any cheaper since invading Iraq, and it probably won't. Because OPEC has already, and will continue to, slash production to compensate for the Iraqi oil coming online.
If all we Americans wanted was oil, how come we didn't kill SH in the first Gulf War and take his oil then? How come we don't invade Saudi Arabi or Kuwait and take their oil? These two countries are far less powerful than SH and his regime ever were.
For the record, Bush haggled with the impotent and self-rendered irrelevant U.N. for 14 long months, were the hell were you?
And you shoudn't hold your breath waiting for our economy to be sucked so dry unless you plan on comitting suicide.

[ScummyD]

You see EntImp, everyone else here offers their opinion too, BUT THEY BACK THEM UP WITH FACTS AND THE HISTORICAL RECORD! It is fine to disagree but offer some support, not just a hit and run opinion!

[NetxMan]

This is common liberal rehtoric. They have no proof, they never will. Me, scymmyd, and gopman, post quote after quote of fact. I do nothing but post facts, to back up most my statments. (not all, most)

But, yet they don't want to read it. Its and endless cycle. Get used to it.

[up2date]

Originally posted by NetxMan
This is common liberal rehtoric. They have no proof, they never will. Me, scymmyd, and gopman, post quote after quote of fact. I do nothing but post facts, to back up most my statments. (not all, most)

But, yet they don't want to read it. Its and endless cycle. Get used to it. That is very partisan thinking to label every liberal this way. Actually, it's very partisan thinking to label every democrat a liberal.

FYI, supporters of both parties are guilty of this at about an equal rate.

[ScummyD]

There is nothing wrong with being partisan.
And I am still waiting for a liberal to produce a substanitive argument for opposing the war in Iraq; based on something other than that we should of went crawling to the U.N. to ask if was okay.
Any liberal I talk to sputters the same drivel, all the talking head lib pundits on t.v. regurgitate the same tripe.
Yet nothing of evidence, factual support, or of relevent historic value supports their opposition.

[JD3]

Who's not reading?

1. Quote: Bush: "Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11." (I have him tape.)

2. Quote: Bush.: "There is no credible link to Al Queada." (Again, I have him on tape.

3. Quote: David Kay. On "This Week." "Iraq didn't have a functioning weapons program. But there is clear evidence he wanted one."

George Will: "I want a million dollars. That doesn't mean I will get it."

David kay: "If left completely alone, Saddam could develop a program."

Logic: Isn't that true of everyone?

4. CIA before the war while addressing congress: "There is no credible evidence that Saddam has WMDs NOW. We think he might, but we have no clear or credible evidence that he does."

5. CIA before the war: "It is unlikely that Saddam would turn over WMDs to terrorist unless we attack him. If we attack him there is a good possibility that he will.'

6. CNN, NYT, Washington Post, McLauglin Group, This Week, etc. -- "The alleged converstation between Mussoui and Iraqi offical Annon has been discredited.. It most likely didn't take place. And the camps reported in the Kurdish area were most likely beyond Saddam's influence."

7. Same sources -- Bin Lauden and Saddam hated each other. In fact he wanted Saddam dead. Very unlikely that they would work together.

So hear we are. No WMDs, no nuclear program, no link to 9/11, no link to Al Quaeda,and most of this suppported and agreed to by the administration itself.

The burden of proof is on the president. He made the claim. I don't understand why supporters of the war are now saying he has it wrong? He made the claims and yet he clearly states some of this.

With the absence of proof of a threat, and it really show be immenent, I have to conclude that the war was unjust.

If you want to argue that violation of the UN resolution is the only reason, something the administration hasn't done, I still argue you then need the UN. It was their resolution.

[ScummyD]

Like I said, based on something other than that we should of went crawling to the U.N. to ask if was okay.

Tell me, why do we need the U.N.? Why should we care what Cameroon thinks?
And, do you not understand that Iraq (the country we went to war against in '91) has repeatedly violated the cease fire which halted the war? This is justification for military action.

And from many posts ago, you never answered how far or how long you would allow SH to go before intervening.

Like I said, SH was proven to have WMDs, and he admitted it, and the U.N. acknowledged as much.

The burden to prove otherwise was upon SH.

But it seems we are going in circles with this so maybe it is time to move on.

[JD3]

And what would that be?

[NetxMan]

Bush nor Blair never said there was an imminent threat. You need to get a tape on that my friend. The closest thing him or blair ever said where.

"Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike?" - Bush, State of the Union Address.
Bizarrely, this was reported here as "Bush Calls Iraq Imminent Threat".
"Well, it is tough because people don't see an immediate threat arising from Saddam and it's, it's my job as Prime Minister to say to people, there may not