The point is that the decision ot go to war was made in advance and NOTHING was going to deter these hawks from their bloody path. It is a documented fact that Saddam offered to allow unfettered access to everywhere in his country, something he could not have refused with our troops breathing down his neck in Saudi Arabia. You can keep telling yourself the "Saddam defied us too many times" lie all you like, but when it comes down to it, WE started a preemptive war based on faulty intelligence. Not only that, but there were diplomatic options available that the rest of the world (sans the coalition of the bribed) wanted us to explore. Again, the decision to go to war was made in 2001 and everything after that was the administration trying to drum up support. I CAN believe that you are trying to spread this garbage. I am not defending Saddam, I am pointing out that we did NOT explore all of the diplomatic options (even though the administration told us we did), we DID start a preemptive war against a country that was not a threat, and we did it using exaggerated, manipulated, or outright false "intelligence." By the way, I supported Bush after 9/11, I was proud to have him as our president when we went in and kicked Taliban a$$es, and did not turn against him until it was proved that he lied to us. I hate what Bush has done to this country, I am not a Bush hater. Exactly. The UN wanted to go in and prove that the weapons inspections, no-fly zones, and sanctions kept Saddam from producing WMDs, claims that have proven to be 100% accurate. We proved the same thing at the cost of $100 billion and over 700 American lives (and counting).
they HAVENT been searching for years, the weapons inspectors have been playing Saddam's games for years. There are still facilities that havent been searched since the end of Gulf War I. The "destabilization of the region" is a short term problem to the long term solution. Besides, dont believe everything you see on the news, most of Iraq is already more stable now then during the Saddam's Regime. Talk to someone who has been to Iraq, outside of the Sunni Triangle, there is a lot of progress in these areas, just in the 6-9 months of reconstruction.
Where? More stable? Uh, no. More humanitarian, probably. More stable? No. The recent Gallup poll shows even Iraqis who say they're happy Saddam is gone also say they feel less safe now than before the invasion.
So you're justifications for war must include: * 100% proof of invasion by another nation * Citizen's of the invading country must be in support of its Government's action * Action can only be taken with the full unilateral support of the UN... of course this could only happen after years of legislation by the UN. * Action must be limited to only facilites and/or persons that were directly involved in the action taken against you. Welcome to Utopia ! The real world will miss you.
And that is because we are so worried that al Qaeda will find them first??? This does not make a lick of sense. The US has looked hard for WMDs in Iraq and come up empty so far. There was too much political gain to be had not to have spent significant resources toward this goal. The US military also is highly motivated to uncover any WMD-ish weapons that are in Iraq that could be used against them.
1) There is a world of difference, even a real world, between 100% prrof and what we tried to prop up. 2) Er...yes. Well, if they're representative governments. 3) Short of other objective criteria, global opinion is the only barometer for determining the difference between acts of aggression vs. justifiable acts. As demonstrated in the question ( quoted in your last post) about who decides what represents a direct threat, etc., the propspective invaders? I am assuming you might see the conflict of interest there...at least you might see it as it applies to nation other than the US. 4) Er...huh? My first interpretation of this point would be responded to with " Obviously", but I assume I'm missing something here. Could you re-phrase.
Any location flagged by Saddam as a "governmental facility" or "presidental palace" This is debatable, sure some Iraqi's feel less secure because of war still raging in areas. But utilites are being restore, commerce is flowing, roads are being built. However, there is no doubting the fact that Iraq is headed towards being a stable society. The infrastructure is being formed for it, the government is being formed for it, the military and police are being formed for it. Sure there are short term problems with such, but you have to look past that.
1) And you maintain that they still haven't been searched? 2) No, it's really not. The majority of Iraqis feel less safe now than before. That's conclusive. You can argue that the instability now has a desired end, but it still doesn;t alter the fact that the statement that most of the country is more stable now than under Saddam is inaccurate.
No, the justification for war is if they pose a threat to America. They didn't. But for fun, lets answer your questions. This statement doesn't make sense. Do you mean 100% proof of invasion OF another nation? Uh, yes. I'd like to think we don't speculate about whether one country invaded another. I beleive in consesus. Our founding fathers did too. But since W averted funds from the Afgan war to the Iraq war w/out approval, I don't think he got consensus from congress much less the people. If we insist on acting alone, then one day that will harm the U.S. What would have happened if we didn't get international support during WWI or WWII. Don't be so dismissive of international support. We all live in this world together. Besides, if we sign a UN treaty and we brake it, we are liars too. Regardless of what Saddam does, we must hold ourselves to a higher standard. Besides, the UN stuff was working. They even found some missles that Saddam immediately destroyed. Getting obscure, huh? America often tries to be isolationists. In fact, W ran on that platform in 2000. Why the flip-flop to suddenly attacking a county that poses no direct threat on America? In this case, isolationism is good.
On a somewhat related tangent, I hadn't heard what was being said about this: http://www.insightmag.com/main.cfm/include/detail/storyid/670120.html or this: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=3399
1. But any amount of doubt is still doubt. There is nothing 100%, like you said, so you have to be willing to work in a grey area, which we are. At that point, its just a difference of opinion on where you draw the line. Liberal's wanting to support their agenda is making a small % look astronomical. 2. We arent dealing with a represntating government. 3. I want the US to deal with issues it feels necessary. Everyone has thier own agenda (see France, Germany, and Russia). Let the elected representatives in the US represent the US. 4. In any war, civilians will be killed and facilities will be mistakingly bombed. Liberals are waving every civilian death around like it represents a total failure by us. If you take action via war, these things are unavoidable.
1. Iraq broke UN rules 2. WMD 3. Liberate the tortured people 4. Can't cut and run 5. The big myth: War on Terror 6. Reverse Domino Theory. 7. Show Who's Boss. 8. GWB's moral clarity. 9. Iraq as terrorist magnet. 10. Saddam was a very, very bad Evil Doer (tm). 11. Iraq posed an imminent threat to the US.
BTW, how many oil production facilities were accidentially bombed by us? We had a plan to protect the oil facilities, but no plan to not accidentially kill civilians. This shows out misguided priorities and our mendacity wrt our supposed caring about Iraqi civilians.
1. Again, you are not addressing the reality. Yes, there is always doubt. ( One way around that is to not enter into pre-eptive wars, but another discussion). But what we offered was all fabricated and discredited. That doesn't even begin to approach a reasonable standard for proof of a threat. 2. Sorry, misunderstood. I thought you meant the attacker had to reflect the will of his people. So you're asking if the people we attack have to support the attack? Not if their nation is threatening us, but certainly if we are claiming their freedom as our reason. 4. The disctinction is when you use military force to pursue your own agenda in other people's countries. As far as I know, virtually every country who has done this has been determined to be in the wrong. 5. And in an unceccesary war, the government which initiated the war bears the responsibility for the decision to sacrifice collateral damage on the alter of their agenda.
The palaces have been searched, and some were searched prior to Saddam's departure. The fact is that the first places we are going to look and have looked at were the most likely ones to contain WMD materials. Each place searched afterward will have a less likely chance of containing those materials. Crime, Violence, and Security, are all worse now than when Saddam was in charge. It may be only temporary. I used to be certain that it would be temporary. But now that the only way the Iraqi govt. will be pro U.S. is if it's a puppet, then it will either end up being a totalitarian regime, or an anti-U.S. democracy, or something worse but still anti-U.S. I think at one point they actually did have a chance of turning into a genuine democracy without any lasting resentment to their occupiers but that's been ruined by the immoral actions of some of the U.S. troops, civil contractors, and bungling leadership running things.
Yup - that's what I said on page 1 of this thread. I totally agree. I'm not a liberal. I (mostly) bought into the WMD hype - until we actually got in there and found nothing. That's when I asked, "Okay... then what's the real reason we attacked?" It's gotta be oil. That's the only explanation. -- droxford
Which is easier to identify and target or avoid from afar? 1. An oil production facility OR 2. An Iraqi soldier
