Nomar, Cohen and other defenders of the Iraq war, is there some sort of upper limit to how many Iraqis the US kills in the occupation of Iraq before we will decide that "liberating" them was not worth it? Basso basically tried to justify the killing of many thousands of Iraqis by saying Sadam killed 61, 000. Is that the upper limit to the number of Iraqis we can kill and still be America, the Pure? Cohen, when you unecessarily destroy the water supplies and sewerage systems of a country you do have a responsibility for the death of the children that result. Certainly many thousands would have died even if Sadam was a public health hero. Forcing a reductions in Sadam's income therebye making him choose between spending to defend his regime or giving the kids clean water had the very predictable result of leading to many deaths. Bush Senior, Powell and the gang calculated that by creating a deadly mess and chaos in post Gulf War Iraq there would be a revolt against Sadam. The hundreds of thousands of innocents that died were not of great nterest to them. Dont forget the many thousands of Shiites that were killed when Bush Senior encouraged them to revolt, but let them be slaughtered Trying to put all the blame on the evil dictator who prior to your destruction managed to keep the kids alive helps perhaps your conscience, but just isn't right or in line with the facts.
Most of whom died in the '80s and '90s. You continue to ignore the fact that humanitarian concerns were secondary when making the case for war because the American people did not support starting a war with Iraq just because Saddam was a murderous tyrant. Nobody is disputing the fact that he was a murderous tyrant, but that is not what gave Bush the green light (in the public eye) for war, the claims of WMDs are what caused America to support war with Iraq. You may call it callous all you want, I call it keeping my eye on the ball and not falling for spin.
Yet more attempts to avoid the perfectly reasonable question. A war that we were dragged into for the express purpose of protecting ourselves from WMD now is all about avenging the citizens that SH killed? Talk about revisionist.
If the war were just regardless, the administration would not have had to crow about WMDs as loudly as they did when trying to drum up support. Bush and company decided to go to war and THEN made the case for it to the American public using any information they could find, regardless of accuracy. They KNEW beyond a shadow of doubt that the information they were providing was misleading and/or false and yet they used that information anyway. You can fall for the spin and be led around by that ring in your nose if you like, but many of us don't enjoy being told that we are going to be fed prime rib only to be served a **** sandwich and told that we are going to eat it and LIKE it.
Rationals/justifications for war often change as the facts on the ground change. We now remember and accept that the Civil War was fought over slavery, yet Lincoln didn't come to this conclusion until the war had been waging for over a year, and didn't issue the Emancipation Proclamation for four months after he wrote it in the aftermath of Antietam. Even then, it was a political move, as Linclon, in the face of appalling losses, needed a more worthy justification for the war than merely the preservation of the union. Now we accept that together preservation of the Union and freedom for the slaves was worth the enormous loss of life in the Civil War. Similarly, although the original case for war pivoted on the nexus of WMDs and terrorism (a case that is still evolving), the humanitarian case is just as strong. the fact that it is invoked now, after "major combat" operations in no way minimizes the original case, nor should it be derided as just "spin." only the most callous, indifferent, reactionary, politized posters would attempt to make such an arguement.
We went to war because Bush said Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and would *IMMINENTLY* attack the U.S. "Freeing" the Iraqi people became justification after fighting started and no weapons were found.
there you go again...he never said we were in imminent danger. if you inferred that, then i can only surmise you'd already formed an opinion.
"We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We're concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVS for missions targeting the United States." -- President Bush, Oct. 5, 2002. "We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have." -- President Bush, Feb. 8, 2003.
" 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? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option. " --SOTU 2003
Neither of those is an imminent threat to the US: "Iraq is exploring ways us using..." and "Iraqi field commenders" are not imminent threats to the US... only to US military troops marching towards Baghdad
He clearly stated that Saddam had weapons and would use them. So we had to attack immediately. Not tomorrow, not after getting U.N. approval - IMMEDIATELY. Saddam didn't have weapons. He wasn't going to attack. Yet Bush stated that Saddam was an imminent threat. In the State of the Union address, no less. Bush's policy of "pre-emptive strike" is terrifying enough, but Saddam didn't even *HAVE* weapons to attack us with. How pre-emptive do we need to be? Kill all Iraqi children because they might grow up to be dictators?
1) Who Cares what Gore thinks... 2) Catastrophic my azz...He is still trying to get pub for his sorry azz defeat almost 4 years ago...He himself agrees that Sadamm was a bad person and should've been taken out...Everyone has an opinion...
i think i'm through discussing this with you. he said exactly the opposite, and although your eyes must see it, somehow your brain refuses to acknowledge it. reality's a great, if occasionally terrifying place. I invite you to join us here.
Only in your deluded little world. If the humanitarian reasons were enough, we would have invaded and taken Saddam out in the '80s. The ONLY rationale that the American public responded to when the case for war was made was WMDs. The ONLY reason that I specifically thought this war was justified was because Rummy (and others) made the rounds on the talking heads shows and said that they KNEW for a FACT not only that Saddam had WMDs, but that they knew EXACTLY where those weapons were. This administration is changing the spin on their rationale and justifications for war because it turns out that the "intelligence" they had was outdated, mistaken, or just flat wrong. Actually, if you look at the history, slavery was the cause of the civil war and it was very clear before the southern states seceded that it was about slavery. Here is a link so that you can educate yourself. http://members.aol.com/jfepperson/secesh.html The "humanitarian case" may have been enough for the people who were in support of attacking Iraq even before the overblown claims of WMDs, but for the rest of us, it just looks like the Bushies (and their apologists) are trying to cover their a$$es for lying to the country by citing all the horrible things Saddam did to his people. I will reiterate that if having a murderous tyrant in charge of a country is justification for war then it stands to reason that we have our work cut out for us since there are at least 20 other brutal dictators who have killed at least as many as Saddam. YES IT DOES!!! The fact remains that before the war it was "WMDs, Sarin, anthrax, nukes" and "Saddam is a brutal dictator who has murdered his own people!" Now, they are claiming that the WMD claims don't even matter. They cited intelligence that led us to war and (intentional or not) that intelligence has turned out to be absolutely false. They are spinning like the biggest CD in history and YOU are falling for it. [/B][/QUOTE] YOU are accusing ME of being politicized??? That is RICH! You can't see past the elephant in the middle of the living room long enough to acknowledge that our leaders have lied to us. I have a lot of compassion for the people who Saddam murdered and a boatload of empathy for their families, but neither my compassion nor my empathy erases the fact that the American public was manipulated into supporting a war based on "intelligence" that has turned out to be false. If Clinton had done the same thing, you (and all the other GOP partisans) would have called for his head to be displayed on a pig pole.
you know andy, all i can add is that Hillary's support for the war has caused me to reevaluate my ten year old opinion of her as a devious, scheming opportunist (that's the polite description!). she seems almost statesman like alongside Dean, Gore and all the others who have drunk the anti-war koolaid.
You didn't respond to his evidence that you stated an untruth, and an allegation that GV was prejudiced without facts. The POTUS said there was a clear and immediate danger and you said he did not. GV responds and you don't respond at all but redirect the conversation.
see my response to GV. as i said, the president said the opposite. no amount of spin can alter that reality.
Funny thing is, before the War started, all of Clinton's old team agreed with taking action against Iraq in defense of the US, with only Albright really speaking out against the timing of it. When this has been mentioned before, the flaming liberals around here go bolting from the thread. There is never a response. The 'truth' that is recognized by those in the know, regardless of party affiliation, is that evidence ... whether right/wrong or proven/unproven, clearly showed a threat to the US.
