• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Iraq War planned since Bush 1 invaded, Clinton admin. wanted it, 9/11 was the excuse

TheHonestTruth

Active member
Joined
Jul 25, 2005
Messages
423
Reaction score
27
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Im making the point that its not government administration specific.

Im a libertarian, so I think democrats today are as worthless are republicans, but people like to say its all about the Republican right and the Bush family wanting war in Iraq for oil. NO! It was always heavily influenced by oil, but the U.S. wanted to overthrow Saddam during Clinton years too, I dont think most partisan idiots realize that.

Its a fact the U.S. was an ally of Saddam in the 80's through his domestic terrorism as he gassed the Kurds. We sold him weapons and helped them as he needed help.Im thinking about the timeline. Saddam was a U.S. ally until the 1990 invasion, being an ally it makes sense that we wouldnt condone his unprovoked agression to another nation. Senseless violence within his own country is bad to codone but were able to do that more covertly I think, but allowing an ally to try to conquer neighbooring areas shines poorly on the U.S. intrests. So I can see that Bush 1 saw it as a needed thing and certainly a chance to democratize the area and use it for industry boost. Either way, it would have been a prolonged conflict resulting in overthrow if the Iraqis hadnt surrendered in 100 hours like they did after we attacked them in 1990.

Right wing Washington think tanks had been planning to assume power against agressor nations in the mid east like Iraq according to their own documents in the 1990's.

But did anyone here know about the 1998 Iraqi Liberation Act?

from wikipedia:

"In 1998, U.S. President Bill Clinton expressed concerns about Iraq's failure to disarm, noting that he believed the country would give its weapons of mass destruction to other countries. Clinton also stated his belief that Saddam Hussein would eventually use these weapons - it was "only a matter of time." On September 29, 1998, the United States Congress passed the Iraq Liberation Act, which states that the U.S. intends to remove Saddam Hussein from office and replace the government with a democratic institution. The Iraq Liberation Act was signed by President Clinton on October 31, 1998. On the same day, Iraq announced it would no longer cooperate with United Nations weapons inspectors."


I didnt know the Iraq Liberation Act existed. Saddam was a reckless tyrant, but he failed once and got whooped in 1990, so he wasnt more of a threat. We condoned his policies in the 80's when he was our brutal dicator of choice, but after we showed him we wouldnt let him do whatever he wanted in the mid east, his ideas of conquering neighbooring countries was over. He wasnt more of a threat after the Kuwait invasion and following Gulf War. But our relationship changed after that skirmish. He started thwarting chemcial weapons inspections and so we had a reason to now overthrow him. Clearly we were just waiting for an excuse to get in and overthrow him all along since Bush 1.



But still, we need to get this war over with. Its inspiring terrorism in a new generation that will hate America. We need to finish the mission, as horrible as it is.


Its a quagmire based on a poorly planned overthrow for profits to energy companies and military industries, but for our own safety we have to get a stable government in place because otherwise we lose crediblility. If Iraq stablizes we gain lots of credibility back that we have lost, but if not we are really screwed.

Unfortunately Saddam's brutal regime was the only thing that was holding that crap pile together. Those people only know violence and brutality, creating democracy there will be a very slow process. I just hope we can turn it over to them as fast as possible. Im just not sure its going to be a U.S. friendly democracy like we thought, seeing how destabilized we made the country.

The U.S. energy corporations like Halliburton are the only major beneficiaries if we make it a U.S. friendly region. Its not going to have really any impact on oil prices. As we see in the Katrina aftermath and these record profits this last quarter, oil companies will gouge if at all possible. They know they have us over a barrel now. I think the money would have been better spent investing in alternative fuels, the free market needs impetus. The oil scare has created that impetus, but government help cant hurt. I would rather spend tax dollars going to energy research than to military industries which are merchants of death.
 

FinnMacCool

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 23, 2005
Messages
2,272
Reaction score
153
Location
South Shore of Long Island.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
I'd like to see a better source then wikipedia for this kind of info. You can't take anything from there to be fact.
 

cnredd

Major General Big Lug
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 5, 2005
Messages
8,682
Reaction score
262
Location
Philadelphia,PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
FinnMacCool said:
I'd like to see a better source then wikipedia for this kind of info. You can't take anything from there to be fact.
I give you the EXACT WORDS from President Clinton...

The Iraq Liberation Act
October 31, 1998

STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT

THE WHITE HOUSE

Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release

October 31, 1998

STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT

Today I am signing into law H.R. 4655, the "Iraq Liberation Act of 1998." This Act makes clear that it is the sense of the Congress that the United States should support those elements of the Iraqi opposition that advocate a very different future for Iraq than the bitter reality of internal repression and external aggression that the current regime in Baghdad now offers.

Let me be clear on what the U.S. objectives are: The United States wants Iraq to rejoin the family of nations as a freedom-loving and law-abiding member. This is in our interest and that of our allies within the region.

The United States favors an Iraq that offers its people freedom at home. I categorically reject arguments that this is unattainable due to Iraq's history or its ethnic or sectarian make-up. Iraqis deserve and desire freedom like everyone else. The United States looks forward to a democratically supported regime that would permit us to enter into a dialogue leading to the reintegration of Iraq into normal international life.

My Administration has pursued, and will continue to pursue, these objectives through active application of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions. The evidence is overwhelming that such changes will not happen under the current Iraq leadership.
..(continuance of source)...

http://www.library.cornell.edu/colldev/mideast/libera.htm

And here's the ACTUAL House Resolution he's referring to...

H.R.4655
Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Enrolled Bill (Sent to President))


http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/US/Legislation/ILA.htm
 
Last edited:

MSgt

Stabler Genius
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 10, 2005
Messages
24,918
Reaction score
10,111
Location
Highlands Ranch, CO
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
The haters on the site will not stand for this. It does not further their hateful painting of the "Bush Clan." It's all Bush's fault..and his Daddy....and Jeb.
 

Billo_Really

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 6, 2005
Messages
18,930
Reaction score
1,040
Location
HBCA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Here's a little more insight on the decisions and events that led to the war. It is complex without one thing that could be pointed to as the catalyst. This we know, going into Iraq had more to do with the personal agenda's of US right-wing zealots than it did finding WMD's or liberating the Iraqi people.

In light of the recent indictments in Washington and opposition to the Meir nomination, I would like to thank those on the right side of the aisle for finally starting to oppose the Bush Administration foreign and domestic policies. It's about time you started doing the right thing. No pun intended.

All the vice president's men
The ideologues in Cheney's inner circle drummed up a war. Now their zealotry is blowing up in their faces.
By Juan Cole


Oct. 28, 2005 | As Washington waits on pins and needles to see if special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald hands down indictments, the focus falls on Dick Cheney's inner circle. This group, along with that surrounding Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, made up what Colin Powell's top aide, Lawrence Wilkerson, called "a cabal" that "on critical issues ... made decisions that the bureaucracy did not know were being made." Cheney is the first vice president to have had, in effect, his own personal National Security Council. This formidable and unprecedented rump foreign policy team, composed of radical hawks, played a key role in every aspect of the war on Iraq: planning for it, gathering "evidence" to justify it and punishing those who spoke out against it. It is not surprising that members of that team, and Cheney himself, have now also emerged as targets in Fitzgerald's investigation of the outing of Valerie Plame Wilson to the press, along with Bush advisor Karl Rove.

Although the investigation has focused on Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, a number of other Cheney staffers have been interviewed. Who are these shadowy policymakers who played such a major role in shaping the Bush administration's foreign policy?

Most of the members of Cheney's inner circle were neoconservative ideologues, who combined hawkish American triumphalism with an obsession with Israel. This does not mean that the war was fought for Israel, although it is undeniable that Israeli concerns played an important role. The actual motivation behind the war was complex, and Cheney's team was not the only one in the game. The Bush administration is a coalition of disparate forces -- country club Republicans, realists, representatives of oil and other corporate interests, evangelicals, hardball political strategists, right-wing Catholics, and neoconservative Jews allied with Israel's right-wing Likud party. Each group had its own rationale for going to war with Iraq.

Bush himself appears to have had an obsession with restoring family honor by avenging the slight to his father produced by Saddam's remaining in office after the Gulf War. Cheney was interested in the benefits of a war to the oil industry, and to the military-industrial complex in general. It seems likely that the Iraq war, which produced billions in no-bid contracts for the company he headed in the late 1990s, saved Halliburton from bankruptcy. The evangelicals wanted to missionize Iraqis. Karl Rove wanted to turn Bush into a war president to ensure his reelection. The neoconservatives viewed Saddam's Iraq as a short-term danger to Israel, and in the long term, they hoped that overthrowing the Iraqi Baath would transform the entire Middle East, rather as Kamal Ataturk, who abolished the offices of Ottoman emperor and Sunni caliph in the 1920s, had brought into being a relatively democratic Turkey that was allied with Israel. (This fantastic analogy was suggested by Princeton emeritus professor and leading neoconservative ideologue Bernard Lewis.) This transformation would be beneficial to the long-term security of both the United States and Israel.

None of these rationales would have been acceptable across the board, or persuasive with Congress or the American public, so the various factions focused on the threat of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. Unfortunately for them, this rationale was discovered to be a mirage. And in the course of trying to punish those who were pointing out that the emperor had no clothes -- or, in this case, that the dictator had no weapons of mass destruction -- Cheney and Bush's underlings went too far. Ironically, their attempt to silence critics succeeded only in turning a harsh light on their own actions and motivations.

"Cheney Assembles Formidable Team," marveled a Page One article in the Feb. 3, 2001, edition of the New York Times. It turns out that Cheney had 15 military and political advisors on foreign affairs, at a time when the president's own National Security Council was being downsized. The number of aides who counseled Cheney on domestic issues was much smaller. In contrast, Al Gore had been advised by a single staffer on security affairs.

The leader of the team was Libby, Cheney's chief of staff. Libby had studied at Yale with Paul Wolfowitz, who brought him to Washington. He co-authored a hawkish policy document with Wolfowitz in the Department of Defense for its head, Dick Cheney, after the Gulf War in 1992. When it was leaked, it embarrassed the first President Bush. Libby was a founding member of the Project for a New American Century in 1997 during the Clinton years, when many neoconservatives were out of office. The PNAC attempted to use the Republican-dominated Congress to pressure Clinton to take a more belligerent stance toward Iraq, and it advocated significantly expanding military spending and using U.S. troops as "gendarmes" in the aftermath of wars to "shape" the international security environment.

Cheney was also a PNAC member, and his association with this group from 1997 signaled a shift from his earlier hard-nosed realism, as he allied himself with the neoconservatives, who dreamed of transforming other societies. The James Baker branch of the Republican Party had long been critical of Israel for causing trouble for the United States in the Middle East with its expansionist policies and unwillingness to stop the settlement of the West Bank, and Baker was well aware that the vast majority of American Jews do not vote Republican.

Although a staunch defender of Israel, Cheney at one time was at least on speaking terms with this wing of the Republican Party. (The sense of betrayal felt by his old colleagues was summed up by Bush I's national security advisor Brent Scowcroft, who told the New Yorker he considered Cheney a friend, "But Dick Cheney I don't know anymore." As time went on, however, he increasingly chose to ally with neoconservatives and the Jewish right in the U.S. and Israel, accepting them as powerful allies and constituents for his vision of a post-Cold War world dominated by an unchallenged American hegemony that would be backed by a vast military-industrial establishment fed by U.S. tax dollars. He continually promised skeptical Jewish audiences that a democratic Iraq would benefit Israel. His choice of advisors when he became vice president demonstrated a pronounced preference for the neoconservatives.

But Cheney's alliance with the neocons was probably driven more by his Manichaean, Cold War-inspired worldview -- in which the U.S. battled an evil enemy -- and his corporate ties, than by an obsession with Israel or remaking the Middle East. Islamist terror provided a new version of the Soviet "evil empire." And the neocons' dynamic foreign policy vision, their "liberalism with guns," offered more opportunities for the military-industrial complex than did traditional Republican realism in a post-Soviet world, where peer states did not exist and no credible military threat menaced the U.S. Only a series of wars of conquest in the Middle East, dressed up as a "defense" against the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, could hope to keep the Pentagon and the companies to which it outsourced in the gravy.

Such wars could no longer be fought in East Asia, given Chinese and North Korean nuclear capabilities, and there were no U.S. constituencies for such wars in most other parts of the world. The Middle East was the perfect arena for a renewed American militarism, given that the U.S. public held deep prejudices against the Arab-Muslim world, and, after Sept. 11, deeply feared it.
The rest of the article can be found here:

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2005/10/28/vice_president/print.html
 

Billo_Really

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 6, 2005
Messages
18,930
Reaction score
1,040
Location
HBCA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Originally posted by GySgt:
Ha ha. Told ya.
Would you also like to take credit for the crap I took this morning?
 

MSgt

Stabler Genius
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 10, 2005
Messages
24,918
Reaction score
10,111
Location
Highlands Ranch, CO
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Billo_Really said:
Would you also like to take credit for the crap I took this morning?
Not if it stank. I have it on good authority that my crap don't stink.
 

Billo_Really

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 6, 2005
Messages
18,930
Reaction score
1,040
Location
HBCA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Originally posted by GySgt:
Not if it stank. I have it on good authority that my crap don't stink.
You need to stop with these Gy Daily Show comments. They take me out of my game-face until I can stop laughing (minus a few moments for the conversion).
 

aps

Passionate
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 25, 2005
Messages
15,675
Reaction score
2,979
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
Bush 1 knew that invading Iraq was a bad idea. I dont' care if Clinton fully supported invading Iraq. It was Dubya who decided to invade. He was obsessed with invading at the time he started his presidency--January 2001. Both Paul O'Neill and Richard Clarke have stated that. 9-11 was a distraction, and Bush was furious about that. But then he and his advisers were able to come up with an excuse--saying that there was a connection between Iraq and September 11th.

Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Buck tooth Condoleezza were saying that NOT only did Iraq have WMDs (which, I agree, many people thought that was the case), they also said that we were in imminent danger of getting attacked by those weapons. They knew that the only way the United States would agree to go to war is if they stated that we were in danger.

As for the lies that they told, we reap what we sew.......
 

MSgt

Stabler Genius
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 10, 2005
Messages
24,918
Reaction score
10,111
Location
Highlands Ranch, CO
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
aps said:
Bush 1 knew that invading Iraq was a bad idea. I dont' care if Clinton fully supported invading Iraq. It was Dubya who decided to invade. He was obsessed with invading at the time he started his presidency--January 2001. Both Paul O'Neill and Richard Clarke have stated that. 9-11 was a distraction, and Bush was furious about that. But then he and his advisers were able to come up with an excuse--saying that there was a connection between Iraq and September 11th.

Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Buck tooth Condoleezza were saying that NOT only did Iraq have WMDs (which, I agree, many people thought that was the case), they also said that we were in imminent danger of getting attacked by those weapons. They knew that the only way the United States would agree to go to war is if they stated that we were in danger.

As for the lies that they told, we reap what we sew.......

Personally, I don't care if it was a big old lie or not. Saddam needed to go and now he is gone. Iraq was oppressed and brutalized by a dictator and now they are not. Saudi has us by the balls with their oil and now that we have a free Iraq maybe we will cut our ties to the true lords of terror eventually. Saddam would have and probably did finance terrorist acts against America and our allies and now he cannot. With Iran looking to develop nukes and Saddam sitting across the border looking for anyway to secure American absence from his country, our nation and our allies would have been in danger and now we are not.

America is still in danger. You're just looking for a concrete Islamic militant Army instead of the civilization where extremists recruit their "martyrs." The oppressed civilization and the desperation of individuals that adhere to the Korans most brutal scriptures for answers to salvation and escape from their government sponsers is the danger.
 

128shot

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 19, 2005
Messages
1,258
Reaction score
31
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Re: Iraq War planned since Bush 1 invaded, Clinton admin. wanted it, 9/11 was the exc

GySgt said:
Personally, I don't care if it was a big old lie or not. Saddam needed to go and now he is gone. Iraq was oppressed and brutalized by a dictator and now they are not. Saudi has us by the balls with their oil and now that we have a free Iraq maybe we will cut our ties to the true lords of terror eventually. Saddam would have and probably did finance terrorist acts against America and our allies and now he cannot. With Iran looking to develop nukes and Saddam sitting across the border looking for anyway to secure American absence from his country, our nation and our allies would have been in danger and now we are not.

America is still in danger. You're just looking for a concrete Islamic militant Army instead of the civilization where extremists recruit their "martyrs." The oppressed civilization and the desperation of individuals that adhere to the Korans most brutal scriptures for answers to salvation and escape from their government sponsers is the danger.



Sure Saddam is gone who didn't do these three things


1.Fund Osama Bin Laden

2.Build WMDs that could attack the United States

3. Fund international terrorism.




I can name a country that does: SAUDI ARABIA
 

MSgt

Stabler Genius
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 10, 2005
Messages
24,918
Reaction score
10,111
Location
Highlands Ranch, CO
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Re: Iraq War planned since Bush 1 invaded, Clinton admin. wanted it, 9/11 was the exc

128shot said:
Sure Saddam is gone who didn't do these three things


1.Fund Osama Bin Laden

2.Build WMDs that could attack the United States

3. Fund international terrorism.




I can name a country that does: SAUDI ARABIA

1) How do you know? I guess all of his money, which was not shared with his people, was spent on his pretty gardens.

2) How do you know? There are still stockpiles of WMD unaccounted for. WMD that the UN inspectors declared in 1998 in which there is no trace of today.

3) How do you know? What does it matter anyway? He harbored Al-Queda personel within his borders after 9/11. Strange that out of the entire world, they went there.

It doesn't really matter anymore does it? We no longer have to waste anymore time dealing with him and all of the funds and personel that Al-Queda has been throwing away on us in Iraq are resources that weren't used plotting further attacks in America.

Good job. You've exposed the largely known and widely accepted Saudi Arabia as the true sponsers of terrorism. When you stop pumping your car with gas and stop using oil products and the rest of America follows suit...we'll deal with them.:doh
 
Joined
Aug 11, 2005
Messages
1,670
Reaction score
17
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Re: Iraq War planned since Bush 1 invaded, Clinton admin. wanted it, 9/11 was the exc

GySgt said:
1) How do you know? I guess all of his money, which was not shared with his people, was spent on his pretty gardens.
Saddam spent it on palaces, cars, televisions, solid gold toilets, etc. Given the available evidence, thats it.

GySgt said:
2) How do you know? There are still stockpiles of WMD unaccounted for. WMD that the UN inspectors declared in 1998 in which there is no trace of today.
The ISG concluded that they were either destroyed with the rest or completely abandoned by Saddam like the serrin shells. Either way, the ISG concluded that none of them were of a "militarily significant capability."

GySgt said:
3) How do you know? What does it matter anyway? He harbored Al-Queda personel within his borders after 9/11. Strange that out of the entire world, they went there.
I doubt Saddam knew every person crossing his borders. Not even we know whos crossing our borders. You assume there was some elaborate plot to protect the remnants of Al Qaeda even though theres no evidence to sudgest one. Al Qaeda went everywhere after we invaded Afghanistan..not just Iraq.

GySgt said:
It doesn't really matter anymore does it? We no longer have to waste anymore time dealing with him and all of the funds and personel that Al-Queda has been throwing away on us in Iraq are resources that weren't used plotting further attacks in America.

It's more likely that the Al Qaeda cells that would carry out an attack on America are already here with those resources. Remember, they used our resources to attack us last time.
 

MSgt

Stabler Genius
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 10, 2005
Messages
24,918
Reaction score
10,111
Location
Highlands Ranch, CO
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Re: Iraq War planned since Bush 1 invaded, Clinton admin. wanted it, 9/11 was the exc

Napoleon's Nightingale said:
Saddam spent it on palaces, cars, televisions, solid gold toilets, etc. Given the available evidence, thats it.
My Commander took a **** in one of his solid gold toilets. He said he expected his toilet paper to be of finer quality.

Napoleon's Nightingale said:
I doubt Saddam knew every person crossing his borders. Not even we know whos crossing our borders. You assume there was some elaborate plot to protect the remnants of Al Qaeda even though theres no evidence to sudgest one. Al Qaeda went everywhere after we invaded Afghanistan..not just Iraq.
The fact remains. They went to Iraq. I find it hard to believe that Saddam was not aware of everything in his country. It's actually ludicrous that he would not. At the time, it was not public knowledge that Iraq was next. Saddam didn't know.

Napoleon's Nightingale said:
It's more likely that the Al Qaeda cells that would carry out an attack on America are already here with those resources. Remember, they used our resources to attack us last time.
Likely. Another terrorist attack is inevitable, but for now they are not focused on America. They seem to be content with attacking our allies instead of facing us on our soil. It's the same as if I walked up and hit you...you commence to beat the **** out of me....then I resort to just tormenting your friends rather than directly **** you off again. Results against this civilization and their zealots will not be immediate. The fact still remains that a vast amount of resource has been squandered to fight us, in the manner that they deem noble, and murder civilians in Iraq. These resources cannot be recycled. They can create more bombs, but their pool of "martyrs" are either dead or just wandering around Iraq blowing up stores. They are not the organized military they were a year ago.
 
Last edited:

dragonslayer

Counselor
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 2, 2005
Messages
1,856
Reaction score
139
Location
Pacific Northwest, Oregon
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Re: Iraq War planned since Bush 1 invaded, Clinton admin. wanted it, 9/11 was the exc

No matter who wanted to go with Iraq, We still have invaded an independent nation for no dam reason. A lot of world leaders did not like Saddam after the Gulf war and before. Who cares if Clinton did not like Saddam. He did not attack Iraq. who should we attack next France? or Britain?

The Man with the big lies attacked Iraq. Bush is probably responsible for more Iraqi deaths than Saddam and the Bath party.
 

aps

Passionate
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 25, 2005
Messages
15,675
Reaction score
2,979
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
GySgt said:
Personally, I don't care if it was a big old lie or not. Saddam needed to go and now he is gone. Iraq was oppressed and brutalized by a dictator and now they are not. Saudi has us by the balls with their oil and now that we have a free Iraq maybe we will cut our ties to the true lords of terror eventually. Saddam would have and probably did finance terrorist acts against America and our allies and now he cannot. With Iran looking to develop nukes and Saddam sitting across the border looking for anyway to secure American absence from his country, our nation and our allies would have been in danger and now we are not.

America is still in danger. You're just looking for a concrete Islamic militant Army instead of the civilization where extremists recruit their "martyrs." The oppressed civilization and the desperation of individuals that adhere to the Korans most brutal scriptures for answers to salvation and escape from their government sponsers is the danger.
Well, GySgt, I think we are more in danger than we were when we invaded Iraq. We have infuriated the Islamic militants. And I agree with the poster who pointed out that this war is responsible for more deaths than Saddam Hussein caused. Are we supposed to invade every country that has a dictator? Is that what our foreign policy is going to be from now on?
 

MSgt

Stabler Genius
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 10, 2005
Messages
24,918
Reaction score
10,111
Location
Highlands Ranch, CO
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Re: Iraq War planned since Bush 1 invaded, Clinton admin. wanted it, 9/11 was the exc

dragonslayer said:
No matter who wanted to go with Iraq, We still have invaded an independent nation for no dam reason. A lot of world leaders did not like Saddam after the Gulf war and before. Who cares if Clinton did not like Saddam. He did not attack Iraq. who should we attack next France? or Britain?

The Man with the big lies attacked Iraq. Bush is probably responsible for more Iraqi deaths than Saddam and the Bath party.
Rubbish. It's these kind comments that discredit your posts.
 

MSgt

Stabler Genius
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 10, 2005
Messages
24,918
Reaction score
10,111
Location
Highlands Ranch, CO
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
aps said:
Well, GySgt, I think we are more in danger than we were when we invaded Iraq. We have infuriated the Islamic militants. And I agree with the poster who pointed out that this war is responsible for more deaths than Saddam Hussein caused. Are we supposed to invade every country that has a dictator? Is that what our foreign policy is going to be from now on?

Our issues in the Middle East involve a culture. Bin Laden, the House of Saud, and Saddam are mere symptoms of decay. Until the civilization is dealt with and given the opportunity to climb out of their oppressive states, then Islamic extremism will persist. Saddam Hussein was every bit a part of the problem and had to go. There would be no change with Saddam still in power in Iraq.

Most of the deaths regarding civilians in this war has been from the hand of Muslims..not us. In war...people die. Perhaps you would have liked it better if we invaded Saudi? Maybe Iran or Syria? Would there be less death? We haven't infuriated anybody. These people hated us before Iraq and they hate us now. They hated us before 9/11 and they hate us now. They hated us before Afghanistan and they hate us now. We are just as safe as we always were. Nothing's changed except for the Middle East. Iraq is seeking a solid democracy. Iran's youth will follow suit and Syria's reformist are already hiding from imprisonment because they have voiced favorably on Bush's sense of change in the Middle East. Perhaps we should do our best to not infuriate them? By the way...this is called appeasement. A direct result being 9/11.

Are you one of those that believe that as long as dictators murder, slaughter, rape, and destroy within their own borders, then they are safe because they are "soveriegn?" This is "old Europe" menatilty. Those days are long gone.
 
Last edited:

cnredd

Major General Big Lug
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 5, 2005
Messages
8,682
Reaction score
262
Location
Philadelphia,PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
GySgt said:
Our issues in the Middle East involve a culture. Bin Laden, the House of Saud, and Saddam are mere symptoms of decay. Until the civilization is dealt with and given the opportunity to climb out of their oppressive states, then Islamic extremism will persist. Saddam Hussein was every bit a part of the problem and had to go. There would be no change with Saddam still in power in Iraq.

Most of the deaths regarding civilians in this war has been from the hand of Muslims..not us. In war...people die. Perhaps you would have liked it better if we invaded Saudi? Maybe Iran or Syria? Would there be less death? We haven't infuriated anybody. These people hated us before Iraq and they hate us now. They hated us before 9/11 and they hate us now. They hated us before Afghanistan and they hate us now. Perhaps we should do our best to not infuriate them. By the way...this is called appeasement. A direct result being 9/11.

Are you one of those that believe that as long as dictators murder, slaughter, rape, and destroy within their own borders, then they are safe because they are "soveriegn?"
Gunny, you once again impress...

For those who like to use the "Why don't we go after the Saudi Arabia or Iran first?" example, may I suggest you go back in time and understand why we invaded Normandy before we went into Berlin...
 

TheHonestTruth

Active member
Joined
Jul 25, 2005
Messages
423
Reaction score
27
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
cnredd said:
Gunny, you once again impress...

For those who like to use the "Why don't we go after the Saudi Arabia or Iran first?" example, may I suggest you go back in time and understand why we invaded Normandy before we went into Berlin...
HELLO...

The 1998 Act states that we would overthrow him, charge him with war crimes, and put in place a democratic government! He has the motive unlike Iran, Saudi Arabia or North Korea!

Most people here seem to be ignoring the 1998 Iraqi Liberation Act. You people that buy into the liberal line, as I once did, that Saddam was not a threat, that is pathetic. Once I learned about the 1998 Act I realized why he was a threat. If you knew about our history with the 1998 Act you would know why.

After that act his vendetta is huge! Were basically telling him his days are numbered and we will invade him sooner or later so we can jail him. He had every reason to sell his weapons he had in 1998. Even if he got rid of them it was only because the U.S. was talking about invading. If we had not overthrown him like we said in 1998, and hadnt done this after 9/11 then that would be a national security risk. What stops him from selling those weapons he had in 1998? When he stopped allowing UN inspections as a result of the Liberation Act-we have no way to account for them and he then has the motive to sell them to terrorists who wish to kill us as he knows his days are numbered since 1998. If you tell someone you are overthrowing them and they have unchecked weapons, how is that not a threat?
 

MSgt

Stabler Genius
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 10, 2005
Messages
24,918
Reaction score
10,111
Location
Highlands Ranch, CO
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
TheHonestTruth said:
HELLO...

The 1998 Act states that we would overthrow him, charge him with war crimes, and put in place a democratic government! He has the motive unlike Iran, Saudi Arabia or North Korea!

Most people here seem to be ignoring the 1998 Iraqi Liberation Act. You people that buy into the liberal line, as I once did, that Saddam was not a threat, that is pathetic. Once I learned about the 1998 Act I realized why he was a threat. If you knew about our history with the 1998 Act you would know why.

After that act his vendetta is huge! Were basically telling him his days are numbered and we will invade him sooner or later so we can jail him. He had every reason to sell his weapons he had in 1998. Even if he got rid of them it was only because the U.S. was talking about invading. If we had not overthrown him like we said in 1998, and hadnt done this after 9/11 then that would be a national security risk. What stops him from selling those weapons he had in 1998? When he stopped allowing UN inspections as a result of the Liberation Act-we have no way to account for them and he then has the motive to sell them to terrorists who wish to kill us as he knows his days are numbered since 1998. If you tell someone you are overthrowing them and they have unchecked weapons, how is that not a threat?

Good point.
 

mikeey

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 3, 2005
Messages
776
Reaction score
93
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
GySgt,USMC and BILLO how can we solve this problem,U are 2 good lads
what can we do now,another 6 soldiers have lost there lives today,and
GYSgt i know u and BILLO as the same as the lads on this forum, R sorry
2 see that.I dont no the anwser,but i hope some 1 will come up whith it
before any more lives R lost please

kind regards to all of U
mikeey
 

MSgt

Stabler Genius
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 10, 2005
Messages
24,918
Reaction score
10,111
Location
Highlands Ranch, CO
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
mikeey said:
GySgt,USMC and BILLO how can we solve this problem,U are 2 good lads
what can we do now,another 6 soldiers have lost there lives today,and
GYSgt i know u and BILLO as the same as the lads on this forum, R sorry
2 see that.I dont no the anwser,but i hope some 1 will come up whith it
before any more lives R lost please

kind regards to all of U
mikeey
Lives are going to be lost. This civilization needs a hand up and away from their oppressions. There is no way to force this without angering the Arab elite and the millions of Islamists in the Middle East that make up the recruitment pool for fanatics who only wish to blame the western world for their ruined lives and succumb to destroy and murder for their God. We have ignored these people as their governments have oppressed them for way too long. We have come to a time in history where nuclear weapons are far too easy to come across and we can not afford to continue to ignore them for our oil. It's too dangerous.
 
Last edited:

cnredd

Major General Big Lug
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 5, 2005
Messages
8,682
Reaction score
262
Location
Philadelphia,PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
TheHonestTruth said:
HELLO...

The 1998 Act states that we would overthrow him, charge him with war crimes, and put in place a democratic government! He has the motive unlike Iran, Saudi Arabia or North Korea!

Most people here seem to be ignoring the 1998 Iraqi Liberation Act. You people that buy into the liberal line, as I once did, that Saddam was not a threat, that is pathetic. Once I learned about the 1998 Act I realized why he was a threat. If you knew about our history with the 1998 Act you would know why.

After that act his vendetta is huge! Were basically telling him his days are numbered and we will invade him sooner or later so we can jail him. He had every reason to sell his weapons he had in 1998. Even if he got rid of them it was only because the U.S. was talking about invading. If we had not overthrown him like we said in 1998, and hadnt done this after 9/11 then that would be a national security risk. What stops him from selling those weapons he had in 1998? When he stopped allowing UN inspections as a result of the Liberation Act-we have no way to account for them and he then has the motive to sell them to terrorists who wish to kill us as he knows his days are numbered since 1998. If you tell someone you are overthrowing them and they have unchecked weapons, how is that not a threat?
uhhhhh...You must've read my post with coke bottle glasses on...You preach to the choir....
 
Top Bottom