From 'Gook' to 'Raghead'

[walrus]

I have been in a war, wounded three times (last was the charm) and can see a justification for war rather than just "we". This country stands for something and that is freedom....

One thing I should have clarified in my previous post; When I talked about the motivations for a war being either taking or preventing being taken I was referring to the overarching motives of the nation as a whole and those in power which move it at that point. I did not in any way refer to the motives of those who actually fight the war. I do not have that experience and can not truly speak to it - and I certainly defer to anyone who has. What most veterans I speak with say about their motives for joining would certainly agree with what you said. Most have also said that when they actually got to the war their main motivation was their comrades.

Further, I certainly agree that wars can have the effect of securing freedom, liberation, or democracy - I simply don't believe that that motivates us to enter a war at the highest levels (regardless of administration). Take WWII, if the defense of freedom was the issue why did we not become involved until 1941? By then Europe had fallen from France to the Soviet Union, and it was only when our own security in the Pacific was threatened that we entered. This is not meant as a criticism of US policy, I believe we look after ourselves first - then our allies - then the rest of the world if we still have time and resources.

 

[gordontravels]

One thing I should have clarified in my previous post; When I talked about the motivations for a war being either taking or preventing being taken I was referring to the overarching motives of the nation as a whole and those in power which move it at that point. I did not in any way refer to the motives of those who actually fight the war. I do not have that experience and can not truly speak to it - and I certainly defer to anyone who has. What most veterans I speak with say about their motives for joining would certainly agree with what you said. Most have also said that when they actually got to the war their main motivation was their comrades.

Further, I certainly agree that wars can have the effect of securing freedom, liberation, or democracy - I simply don't believe that that motivates us to enter a war at the highest levels (regardless of administration). Take WWII, if the defense of freedom was the issue why did we not become involved until 1941? By then Europe had fallen from France to the Soviet Union, and it was only when our own security in the Pacific was threatened that we entered. This is not meant as a criticism of US policy, I believe we look after ourselves first - then our allies - then the rest of the world if we still have time and resources.

I know you did not impune in any way the soldier. Those who will serve do as they are told. However, I don't think any person that has stood on the battleground has more of a voice than someone that hasn't. When I went to war my best friend kept flipping burgers and was there to give me back my reality when I returned. We go to war and others keep the homefires burning whether they support the war or not. "that all men are created equal".

I am one that believes the FDR Administration should have gone to the aid of France and Britain immediately. I believe we should have acted as soon as Luxemborg was invaded. The Treaty of Versaille (sp) nearly strangled Germany and that treaty in itself watered the seed of Hitler.

I firmly believe that FDR was one of the best Presidents we have ever had and one of the worst. I again don't believe we should look to ourself in all situations but to the situation itself. Hitler was who he was and we knew it; FDR new it. You need to ask FDR but we didn't enter the war in Europe until 1941 because of him. Our Commander in Chief was asleep at the wheel and the men and women of Pearl Harbor paid the price. Why? You need to ask him. :duel

 

[vandree]

This country stands for something and that is freedom. Even FDR was finally forced by the Japanese to deal with Hitler by helping the French, British, Russians, all the other enslaved European countries and even the people of Germany and Italy. I just wish he would have acted earlier to shut down the death camps; a strong justification for war

It is interesting you are using the example of WWII to show that there are other justifications for war rather than just "we", however with that example you just proved Walrus' point that "There are two purposes to a war; to take something that someone else has, or to prevent someone from taking something away from you." and that "anyone who tells you we are in this (or any other war) for some silly idea about freedom for people other than Americans, or liberation, or revenge over a failed assassination attempt, or justice is either naive or trying to misinform you".

When WWII started the United States knew what was happening i Germany with the concentration camps, as a matter of fact when in 1938 Freud's house and the headquarters of the Vienna Association of Psychoanalysis are searched and his daughter Anna Freud is arrested and interrogated by the Gestapo, Roosevelt intervened in Freud's favor and later helped him to flee to England. However the United States did not enter the war until the attack on Pearl Harbor.

No nation in history ever fought a war to free any other country.

 

[26 X World Champs]

Saddam murdered hundreds of thousands of his people with a bullet to the head and more including the indescriminate gassing of men, women, children and babies (Kurds) for politics and not a shooting war....My opinion? The war against Saddam was justified.

No one can dispute what an evil man Saddam is. No one can dispute that he killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis.

However, he was not a threat to the USA. If the USA is to become the world's police force then we're in really deep sh*t. If we used Gordon's criteria/justification for invading Iraq we now must go to North Korea, Libya, Sudan, Iran, Chechnya etc. All of these places have evil equal to or greater than Saddam. One can easily make the argument that North Korea is a far greater threat to America than Iraq could ever have been.

If it were not for the oil under Iraq we would not be there, period. The criteria that Iraq is a "justified" war is horribly wrong. Saddam was not a threat to us, we are not the world's cops, we have no damn reason to be in Iraq at the indecent cost of thousands of lives and billions of dollars.

Once we're out of there and time passes the enormity of this blunder will be recorded forever in our history.

Can anyone really suggest that America is liked more today than we were on 9-12-01? The hatred we as a nation have created against us is monumental, and God only knows the ramifications that we will all suffer due to our acting like we own the world.

 

[Fantasea]

I am one that believes the FDR Administration should have gone to the aid of France and Britain immediately. I believe we should have acted as soon as Luxemborg was invaded. The Treaty of Versaille (sp) nearly strangled Germany and that treaty in itself watered the seed of Hitler.

I firmly believe that FDR was one of the best Presidents we have ever had and one of the worst. I again don't believe we should look to ourself in all situations but to the situation itself. Hitler was who he was and we knew it; FDR new it. You need to ask FDR but we didn't enter the war in Europe until 1941 because of him. Our Commander in Chief was asleep at the wheel and the men and women of Pearl Harbor paid the price. Why? You need to ask him.

Keep in mind the time frame, the mental set of the populace, and the economic situation in the mid 1930s when the pot was beginning to boil in Europe.

It was just about fifteen years since the last troops had returned home from WWI. In addition to the war dead, there were not only the physically wounded, but the mentally wounded, those who suffered a new trauma brought about by the incessant shelling, and, of course, the injured survivors of the WMD of the day, poison gas.

1918 saw the outbreak of an influenza epidemic which killed half a million Americans by the time it passed several years later. Out of a total population of about 100 million at the time, that was quite a 'hit'.

The US was in the midst of the Great Depression.

Total up all that misery and it's easy to see why the Congress was filled with sentiments that echoed everything but getting involved in what was viewed as a 'foreign' conflict. The US was believed to be well protected from foreign powers by its Atlantic and Pacific Ocean borders. Isolationism was the watchword.

During the period from 1935 to 1941, Congress passed a series of 'Neutrality Acts' which ensured just that.

The President has not the power to declare war. That is the sole province of Congress. However, long before Pearl Harbor, the US was engaged in a considerable list of activities which could have only been perceived by the Axis Powers as 'begging for a fight'.

See it here: http://www.onwar.com/articles/f0001.htm

Many believe that while Pearl Harbor may have been a surprise to the folks in Hawaii, it was not really a surprise to the folks in the White house, but an event which was welcomed. It provided to the administration what Congress had been reluctant to stand up and provide.

Although the 1940 campaign for his third term stressed a promise not to send US soldiers to war, Roosevelt got into the war as quickly as he could.

 

[Fantasea]

No one can dispute what an evil man Saddam is. No one can dispute that he killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis.

See that; now I'm agreeing with you.

However, he was not a threat to the USA. If the USA is to become the world's police force then we're in really deep sh*t.

The US doesn't have to be the world's police force. It is following the advice of an earlier president, one T. Roosevelt.

If we used Gordon's criteria/justification for invading Iraq we now must go to North Korea, Libya, Sudan, Iran, Chechnya etc. All of these places have evil equal to or greater than Saddam.

You may recall that when Saddam Hussein fell, Col. Kadaffi got religion, as it were, and turned over his nuclear stuff, such as it was, to the US. Two democratically elected governments in the midst of the Arab tyrannies is causing plenty of unrest -- the kind that a free Poland caused among the satellites of the former Soviet Union. Freedom is infectous and contagious.

One can easily make the argument that North Korea is a far greater threat to America than Iraq could ever have been.

NK has mellowed considerably. It rattles its saber whenever things get too quiet but it cannot make a move without the approval of China. As China continues to benefit from trade with the US, its use for NK continues to diminish. I wouldn't be surprised to see, in the not too distant future, a complete collapse of the NK regime that is unable to feed its people.

If it were not for the oil under Iraq we would not be there, period. The criteria that Iraq is a "justified" war is horribly wrong. Saddam was not a threat to us, we are not the world's cops, we have no damn reason to be in Iraq at the indecent cost of thousands of lives and billions of dollars. Once we're out of there and time passes the enormity of this blunder will be recorded forever in our history.

When the smoke clears and the sun shines in on the Middle East, this will turn out to have been the bargain of the century.

Can anyone really suggest that America is liked more today than we were on 9-12-01? The hatred we as a nation have created against us is monumental, and God only knows the ramifications that we will all suffer due to our acting like we own the world.

Those who liked us prior to 9-11 like us today. Those who hated us prior to 9-11 hate us today.

Those who have been our friend understand that we don't desert our friends. Those who have not been our friend should understand by now that the US will not be intimidated.

The folks in some countries can't seem to get it through their heads that there is a difference between the Bush Administration and the Clinton Administration.

 

[Pacridge]

The US doesn't have to be the world's police force. It is following the advice of an earlier president, one T. Roosevelt.

Odd, I remember hearing about TR deploying our "Great White Fleet" around the world as a show of force. I remember learning about his involvement in building a canal. I don't remember hearing anything about him invading any sovereign nations or starting any preemptive wars.

When the smoke clears and the sun shines in on the Middle East, this will turn out to have been the bargain of the century.

I can not put in words the degree to which I hope you're right.

 

[Fantasea]

Originally Posted by Fantasea
The US doesn't have to be the world's police force. It is following the advice of an earlier president, one T. Roosevelt.

Odd, I remember hearing about TR deploying our "Great White Fleet" around the world as a show of force. I remember learning about his involvement in building a canal. I don't remember hearing anything about him invading any sovereign nations or starting any preemptive wars.

Theodore Roosevelt is quoted as saying 'I have always been fond of the West African proverb - speak softly and carry a big stick; you will go far.'

Can there be any doubt that the "Great White Fleet" was loaded for bear? And that, if the occasion warranted, the show of force would have been instantly converted into actual force? After all, he was the guy who is reputed to have led his Rough Riders in their charge up San Juan Hill.

Originally Posted by Fantasea
When the smoke clears and the sun shines in on the Middle East, this will turn out to have been the bargain of the century.

I can not put in words the degree to which I hope you're right.

Think of all the naysayers' predictions about Operation Iraqi Freedom which have fallen flat.

Take heart from that.

 

[Pacridge]

Can there be any doubt that the "Great White Fleet" was loaded for bear? And that, if the occasion warranted, the show of force would have been instantly converted into actual force? After all, he was the guy who is reputed to have led his Rough Riders in their charge up San Juan Hill.

Whats that got to do with going to war based on faulty intelligence? It's one thing to show force, it's another to go to war and end up killing tens of thousands of people based on falsehoods.

 

[Fantasea]

I remember learning about his involvement in building a canal. I don't remember hearing anything about him invading any sovereign nations or starting any preemptive wars.

With respect to the canal, you might recall that while TR was in the White House, with US backing, Panama seceded from Colombia in 1903 and promptly signed a treaty with the US allowing for the construction of a canal and US sovereignty over a strip of land on either side of the structure (the Panama Canal Zone).

Since the situation was precipitated by Colombia's refusal to permit the US to construct a canal across its isthmus territory, lots of folks would wonder about the degree of pressure that may have been exerted by the US to ensure that the whole deal came together exactly the way it did.

I bet the Colombians regret the decision to buck the US to this day. Perhaps they are getting even by poisoning us with all of that stuff they grow which they export to the US sub rosa.

What do you think?

 

[Fantasea]

Whats that got to do with going to war based on faulty intelligence? It's one thing to show force, it's another to go to war and end up killing tens of thousands of people based on falsehoods.

The same old rant continues. Is there no merit to the fact that, at the rate that the Saddam Hussein regime was killing and maiming Iraqis, collateral damage notwithstanding, there are more Iraqis alive today than there would have been had he remained in power?

Consider that intelligence is not science. The available information is analyzed and a conclusion, by good faith consensus, determines the best course to follow. That is the way it has always been.

Consider, too, that the US and all of the major governments and all of their intelligence services, working independently, reached the same conclusion. This was laid out for you earlier.

Consider, too, the earlier mindset of the Democrats who did a 180 degree turnabout after the fall of Baghdad revealed no WMD. All of the 'big mouths' are represented.

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.


"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.


"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.


"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998.


"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.


"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.


"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.


"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.


"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.


"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.


"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.


"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.


"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.


"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.


"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002.


"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do." Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.


"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. 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." Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002.


"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002.


"[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ..." Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.

If you've gotten this far, you might as well go a little farther. Read this:

http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/19131.pdf

Then, start refuting.

 

[Pacridge]

The same old rant continues. Is there no merit to the fact that, at the rate that the Saddam Hussein regime was killing and maiming Iraqis, collateral damage notwithstanding, there are more Iraqis alive today than there would have been had he remained in power?

Consider that intelligence is not science. The available information is analyzed and a conclusion, by good faith consensus, determines the best course to follow. That is the way it has always been.

Consider, too, that the US and all of the major governments and all of their intelligence services, working independently, reached the same conclusion. This was laid out for you earlier.

Consider, too, the earlier mindset of the Democrats who did a 180 degree turnabout after the fall of Baghdad revealed no WMD. All of the 'big mouths' are represented.

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.


"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.


"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.


"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998.


"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.


"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.


"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.


"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.


"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.


"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.


"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.


"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.


"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.


"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.


"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002.


"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do." Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.


"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. 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." Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002.


"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002.


"[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ..." Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.

If you've gotten this far, you might as well go a little farther. Read this:

http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/19131.pdf

Then, start refuting.

Still turned out to be wrong. Who's being/been held accountable?

 

[Fantasea]

Still turned out to be wrong. Who's being/been held accountable?

How about starting with that long list of Democrats?

No refutation?

 

[Pacridge]

How about starting with that long list of Democrats?

No refutation?

Refute what? That they were wrong too?

And who's been held accountable?

 

[Fantasea]

Refute what?

How about this?
"Is there no merit to the fact that, at the rate that the Saddam Hussein regime was killing and maiming Iraqis, collateral damage notwithstanding, there are more Iraqis alive today than there would have been had he remained in power?

Consider that intelligence is not science. The available information is analyzed and a conclusion, by good faith consensus, determines the best course to follow. That is the way it has always been."

And who's been held accountable?

Perhaps the Clinton Administration should be for gutting the intelligence services. Perhaps former Senator Robert Torricelli (D) NJ father of the so-called Torricelli doctrine, which says the government should not rely on people with criminal backgrounds to provide information on foreign policy or national security matters. This effectively prevented our undercover agents from recruiting or dealing with the foreign nationals most likely to be helpful in obtaining information because of their unsavory connections.

 

[Pacridge]

How about this?
"Is there no merit to the fact that, at the rate that the Saddam Hussein regime was killing and maiming Iraqis, collateral damage notwithstanding, there are more Iraqis alive today than there would have been had he remained in power?

Consider that intelligence is not science. The available information is analyzed and a conclusion, by good faith consensus, determines the best course to follow. That is the way it has always been."Perhaps the Clinton Administration should be for gutting the intelligence services. Perhaps former Senator Robert Torricelli (D) NJ father of the so-called Torricelli doctrine, which says the government should not rely on people with criminal backgrounds to provide information on foreign policy or national security matters. This effectively prevented our undercover agents from recruiting or dealing with the foreign nationals most likely to be helpful in obtaining information because of their unsavory connections.

If you're going to go back to place blame why not place the blame where it should be and hold Bush Sr. accountable for not finishing the job right the first time around?

 

[RightinNYC]

See that; now I'm agreeing with you. The US doesn't have to be the world's police force. It is following the advice of an earlier president, one T. Roosevelt.You may recall that when Saddam Hussein fell, Col. Kadaffi got religion, as it were, and turned over his nuclear stuff, such as it was, to the US. Two democratically elected governments in the midst of the Arab tyrannies is causing plenty of unrest -- the kind that a free Poland caused among the satellites of the former Soviet Union. Freedom is infectous and contagious.NK has mellowed considerably. It rattles its saber whenever things get too quiet but it cannot make a move without the approval of China. As China continues to benefit from trade with the US, its use for NK continues to diminish. I wouldn't be surprised to see, in the not too distant future, a complete collapse of the NK regime that is unable to feed its people.When the smoke clears and the sun shines in on the Middle East, this will turn out to have been the bargain of the century.Those who liked us prior to 9-11 like us today. Those who hated us prior to 9-11 hate us today.

Those who have been our friend understand that we don't desert our friends. Those who have not been our friend should understand by now that the US will not be intimidated.

The folks in some countries can't seem to get it through their heads that there is a difference between the Bush Administration and the Clinton Administration.

Very well argued.

 

[Fantasea]

If you're going to go back to place blame why not place the blame where it should be and hold Bush Sr. accountable for not finishing the job right the first time around?

You are mistaken. No doubt because, as with most folks, the popular line is socialist-lib-dem 20/20 hindsight criticism heaped upon anyone named Bush.

The UN mandate that resulted in Desert Storm authorized one thing, and one thing only. That was enforcement of its resolution 660, the full text of which appears below.

S/RES/660 (1990)

2 August 1990

United Nations Security Council Resolution 660
Adopted by the Security Council at its 2932nd meeting, on 2 August 1990

The Security Council,

Alarmed by the invasion of Kuwait on 2 August 1990 by the military forces of Iraq,

Determining that there exists a breach of international peace and security as regards the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait,

Acting under Articles 39 and 40 of the Charter of the United Nations,

1. Condemns the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait;

2. Demands that Iraq withdraw immediately and unconditionally all its forces to the positions in which they were located on 1 August 1990;

3. Calls upon Iraq and Kuwait to begin immediately intensive negotiations for the resolution of their differences and supports all efforts in this regard, and especially those of the League of Arab States;

4. Decides to meet again as necessary to consider further steps with to ensure compliance with the present resolution.

Note #2. That determined the mission and the limit imposed upon the coalition forces -- drive Iraq out of Kuwait, reestablish and secure the mutual border.

Further UN resolutions authorized the use of arms to force Iraq to submit to the provisions of Resolution 660; nothing more. For the coalition to "finish the job" would have been seen as unwarranted, unnecessary, and a violation of a UN mandate.

Additionally, the Arab leaders in the coalition did not want Iraq invaded and its government toppled, ostensibly because they feared exactly what is happening now -- the formation of democratically elected governments in their backyards.

Now that you have the facts, will you change your opinion of Bush #41's actions in Desert Storm?

 

[Pacridge]

You are mistaken. No doubt because, as with most folks, the popular line is socialist-lib-dem 20/20 hindsight criticism heaped upon anyone named Bush.

The UN mandate that resulted in Desert Storm authorized one thing, and one thing only. That was enforcement of its resolution 660, the full text of which appears below.

S/RES/660 (1990)

2 August 1990

United Nations Security Council Resolution 660
Adopted by the Security Council at its 2932nd meeting, on 2 August 1990

The Security Council,

Alarmed by the invasion of Kuwait on 2 August 1990 by the military forces of Iraq,

Determining that there exists a breach of international peace and security as regards the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait,

Acting under Articles 39 and 40 of the Charter of the United Nations,

1. Condemns the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait;

2. Demands that Iraq withdraw immediately and unconditionally all its forces to the positions in which they were located on 1 August 1990;

3. Calls upon Iraq and Kuwait to begin immediately intensive negotiations for the resolution of their differences and supports all efforts in this regard, and especially those of the League of Arab States;

4. Decides to meet again as necessary to consider further steps with to ensure compliance with the present resolution.

Note #2. That determined the mission and the limit imposed upon the coalition forces -- drive Iraq out of Kuwait, reestablish and secure the mutual border.

Further UN resolutions authorized the use of arms to force Iraq to submit to the provisions of Resolution 660; nothing more. For the coalition to "finish the job" would have been seen as unwarranted, unnecessary, and a violation of a UN mandate.

Additionally, the Arab leaders in the coalition did not want Iraq invaded and its government toppled, ostensibly because they feared exactly what is happening now -- the formation of democratically elected governments in their backyards.

Now that you have the facts, will you change your opinion of Bush #41's actions in Desert Storm?

Oh, so now you want to follow the UN. So since the UN called the current Iraq war , specifically Kofi Anna on Sept 16 2004, an illegal war. So then you are against the current Iraq war. I didn't realize that. Then I guess I'd have to agree with you.

 

[Fantasea]

Oh, so now you want to follow the UN. So since the UN called the current Iraq war , specifically Kofi Anna on Sept 16 2004, an illegal war. So then you are against the current Iraq war. I didn't realize that. Then I guess I'd have to agree with you.

I always find it difficult to discuss anything with a person who knows not the difference between an apple and an orange, and who tries to slide off his question when the answer to it knocks him off his high horse.

That being said, can I get an answer to my question which followed my refutation of your complaint about Bush #41? If not, then I and the rest of the readers will understand that you are insincere.

September 16, 2004 was well after the fall of Baghdad. At that point, Secretary Annan was beginning to feel the heat from the Oil for Food scandals which, among others, involved his son. From then until now, he has said a great many things in an effort to deflect attention from himself.

With respect to Operation Iraqi Freedom, remember that the Desert Storm hostilities stopped with a cease fire agreement that specified the obligations of Iraq and the conditions under which hostilities would resume. That's the apple.

Iraq did not honor its obligations under the cease fire agreement; UN warnings were issued and ignored; hostilities resumed under the name Operation Iraqi Freedom. That's the orange.

Do you understand the difference?

If you are not aware of all this, you might wish to do a little reading. All of the UN resolutions are available on line as is the cease fire agreement. Just a few keystrokes away.

 

[Pacridge]

I always find it difficult to discuss anything with a person who knows not the difference between an apple and an orange, and who tries to slide off his question when the answer to it knocks him off his high horse.

That being said, can I get an answer to my question which followed my refutation of your complaint about Bush #41? If not, then I and the rest of the readers will understand that you are insincere.

September 16, 2004 was well after the fall of Baghdad. At that point, Secretary Annan was beginning to feel the heat from the Oil for Food scandals which, among others, involved his son. From then until now, he has said a great many things in an effort to deflect attention from himself.

With respect to Operation Iraqi Freedom, remember that the Desert Storm hostilities stopped with a cease fire agreement that specified the obligations of Iraq and the conditions under which hostilities would resume. That's the apple.

Iraq did not honor its obligations under the cease fire agreement; UN warnings were issued and ignored; hostilities resumed under the name Operation Iraqi Freedom. That's the orange.

Do you understand the difference?

If you are not aware of all this, you might wish to do a little reading. All of the UN resolutions are available on line as is the cease fire agreement. Just a few keystrokes away.

Oh, so you're saying the UN did authorize the current Iraq war? Which one was that? I'll go check it out.

 

[gordontravels]

Oh, so you're saying the UN did authorize the current Iraq war? Which one was that? I'll go check it out.

Please do go check out Resolutions 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17 and you will find demands the U.N. made as to Iraq's responsibilities under the original Gulf War Cease Fire Agreement which many of the quotes in recent previous post have cited. You will clearly find reference made to the consequences that may include military action if Saddam doesn't comply. He didn't.

Madeline Albright, Nancy Pelosi, President Clinton, John Kerry, Tom Daschle, Sandy Berger, Carl Levin, Bob Graham, Al Gore, Jay Rockefeller, Ted Kennedy, Hillary Clinton, Henry Waxman, Robert Byrd - a veritible who's who of the Democrats making these statements both during the Clinton final term and the Bush first term immediately following.

The Gulf War Coalition brought the war to what had been agreed to. Then hostilities ceased with Iraq's surrender and signature to the treaty. Then, Saddam broke the terms of the treaty (see the above Resolutions). The Coalition under our current President also has an agreement between themselves as did the first coalition. They will leave Iraq when the Government of Iraq is secure and able to defend itself. This is coming as you can see how our casualities have fallen off and the Iraqi casualities have gone up. Especially children who are being killed by terrorists.

For you who wish to blame - if you are willing to place an equal amount of blame on the Clinton Administration and the George W. Bush Administration, I am with you if there is blame to place. However, to take intelligence that comes from so many sources and follow it as all of the above did is not for the blame game. We should expect our elected officials to do that. So I ask?

DO THE PEOPLE LISTED ABOVE STAND LOWER THAN PRESIDENTS CLINTON AND GW BUSH? AND IF SO WHAT IS YOUR JUSTIFICATION? There is very little fairness in politics once people have made up their mind. :duel

 

[ludahai]

Oh, so you're saying the UN did authorize the current Iraq war? Which one was that? I'll go check it out.

Security Council Resolution 678
Operative Clause #2

2. Authorizes Member States co-operating with the Government of Kuwait, unless Iraq on or before 15 January 1991 fully implements, as set forth in paragraph 1 above, the above-mentioned resolutions, to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area;

Emphasis mine.

Security Council Resolution 1441
First Preambulatory Clause

Recalling all its previous relevant resolutions, in particular its resolutions 661 (1990) of 6 August 1990, 678 (1990) of 29 November 1990, 686 (1991) of 2 March 1991, 687 (1991) of 3 April 1991, 688 (1991) of 5 April 1991, 707 (1991) of 15 August 1991, 715 (1991) of 11 October 1991, 986 (1995) of 14 April 1995, and 1284 (1999) of 17 December 1999, and all the relevant statements of its President,

Emphasis mine

It is CLEAR that 678 and 1441 are classified as relevant resolutions and that 1441, as a resolution subsequent to 678, carries the authorization for force explicit in resolution 678.

Once Iraq violated 1441, the qualification for the use of force had been attained. Thus, the war was perfectly legal and justified according to Security Council resolutions.

 

[Fantasea]

Oh, so you're saying the UN did authorize the current Iraq war? Which one was that? I'll go check it out.

No response to the question? I guess you know what that means.

 

[Fantasea]

Security Council Resolution 678
Operative Clause #2

2. Authorizes Member States co-operating with the Government of Kuwait, unless Iraq on or before 15 January 1991 fully implements, as set forth in paragraph 1 above, the above-mentioned resolutions, to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area;

Emphasis mine.

Security Council Resolution 1441
First Preambulatory Clause

Recalling all its previous relevant resolutions, in particular its resolutions 661 (1990) of 6 August 1990, 678 (1990) of 29 November 1990, 686 (1991) of 2 March 1991, 687 (1991) of 3 April 1991, 688 (1991) of 5 April 1991, 707 (1991) of 15 August 1991, 715 (1991) of 11 October 1991, 986 (1995) of 14 April 1995, and 1284 (1999) of 17 December 1999, and all the relevant statements of its President,

Emphasis mine

It is CLEAR that 678 and 1441 are classified as relevant resolutions and that 1441, as a resolution subsequent to 678, carries the authorization for force explicit in resolution 678.

Once Iraq violated 1441, the qualification for the use of force had been attained. Thus, the war was perfectly legal and justified according to Security Council resolutions.

Nice job. Thanx for saving me the effort.