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

[TheHonestTruth]

uhhhhh...You must've read my post with coke bottle glasses on...You preach to the choir....

No I knew you got it, I was just quoting you because you mentioned Iran. I was saying "HELLO" to the other people who keep referencing other countries as if they represented a threat like Iraq. Clearly those people have no clue about the history of the 1998 Iraqi Liberation Act.

 

[cnredd]

No I knew you got it, I was just quoting you because you mentioned Iran. I was saying "HELLO" to the other people who keep referencing other countries as if they represented a threat like Iraq. Clearly those people have no clue about the history of the 1998 Iraqi Liberation Act.

Thanks for the clarification...:2wave:

One problem people can't seem to understand(not you) is not only the past history of Iraq, but also the plan for the future of Iraq...

Saddam's plan was to wait out the sanctions, and when they were lifted,(with the assistance of France & Russia, who lived in his pocket), he would be free to reconstitute his WMD programs without interference...

Coming from somebody who had previously attacked multiple countries, used WMDs, stored TONS of precursors to these WMDs, did not account for all of his WMDs, repeatedly broke UN resolutions, planned an assasination of a former US President, mass-murdered hundreds of thousands of civilians, paid the families of Palistinian terrorists, and was, pretty much, being a dickhead in general, I don't think it would be wise to leave him in power...The risk was too great...

 

[akyron]

Thanks for the clarification...:2wave:

One problem people can't seem to understand(not you) is not only the past history of Iraq, but also the plan for the future of Iraq...

Saddam's plan was to wait out the sanctions, and when they were lifted,(with the assistance of France & Russia, who lived in his pocket), he would be free to reconstitute his WMD programs without interference...

Coming from somebody who had previously attacked multiple countries, used WMDs, stored TONS of precursors to these WMDs, did not account for all of his WMDs, repeatedly broke UN resolutions, planned an assasination of a former US President, mass-murdered hundreds of thousands of civilians, paid the families of Palistinian terrorists, and was, pretty much, being a dickhead in general, I don't think it would be wise to leave him in power...The risk was too great...

Nice breakdown of the situation. Dont forget all the dual use technologies.

 

[Napoleon's Nightingale]

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

Saddam's plan was to wait out the sanctions, and when they were lifted,(with the assistance of France & Russia, who lived in his pocket), he would be free to reconstitute his WMD programs without interference...

The U.S. has veto power so the sanctions never would have been lifted even if Russia and France moved to do so.

Coming from somebody who had previously attacked multiple countries

For good reason. Iran was sponsoring the Da'wa party who had attempted to assassinate him, his sons, and several of his ministers, and also desired to turn Iraq into an islamic state with many ties to Iran ie an Iranian puppet state. In terms of Kuwait..Iran began attacking Kuwait long before Saddam. I doubt Saddam wanted Kuwait to be an Iranian staging ground so he tried to take it first.

used WMDs

Most of which were provided by the U.S. We gave him the materials and the means with a some assembly required note.

stored TONS of precursors to these WMDs

Which also have civilian uses.

did not account for all of his WMDs

The U.S. is pretty much the only nation that keeps track of it's abandoned weapons. Chances are that Saddam had no idea where they were. It's like asking Bush where every bullet made in the U.S. is. The UN was asking the impossible.

repeatedly broke UN resolutions

Yes. If Saddam didn't want to obey the rules then he should have withdrawn his membership.

planned an assasination of a former US President

A former U.S. president who planned assasinations of him and promised to support the Kurds in an uprising against him.

mass-murdered hundreds of thousands of civilians

Debateable. The deaths attributed to Saddam were primarily the result of the Iran-Iraq war. Saddam gassed the Kurds because they were in league with Iran. I wonder how much you know about the bombing of Dresden in WW2.

paid the families of Palistinian terrorists

Yes.

and was, pretty much, being a dickhead in general

:lol:

I don't think it would be wise to leave him in power...The risk was too great...

Now that he is out of power we face the risk of Iraq becoming an Iranian puppet state, a civil war, the destabization of the entire region, and yet another Islamic state. The risks are far greater without Saddam in power.

 

[teacher]

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.

How many times have you and I said this? I think we should have a contest of who can get this point across in the fewest words. I won't stoop to winning by saying "Free the Women".

 

[Napoleon's Nightingale]

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

How many times have you and I said this? I think we should have a contest of who can get this point across in the fewest words. I won't stoop to winning by saying "Free the Women".

Ok, then I won't stoop to winning by pointing out that the Saudis engage in human trafficking and forced prostitution. If you want to "free the women" take your beef up with the Saudis.

 

[teacher]

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

Ok, then I won't stoop to winning by pointing out that the Saudis engage in human trafficking and forced prostitution. If you want to "free the women" take your beef up with the Saudis.

I have often on this site.

 

[MSgt]

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

Now that he is out of power we face the risk of Iraq becoming an Iranian puppet state, a civil war, the destabization of the entire region, and yet another Islamic state. The risks are far greater without Saddam in power.

Why do you keep saying this dumb ****? ****!!! There is no risk of Iraq becoming an Iranian theocracy.

Can't make an omelette without breaking eggs. If civil war is in Iraq's best interests, then so be it. I guarantee the Shi'ites win.

Destabilization? Where do you get your guesses? Study the region. Get away from your negative "story of the moment" media and study the region. The youth of Iran and the reformacists of Syria are all watching Iraq. Stop being such a pessimistic dooms day bringer. If you won 10 million dollars, you'd probably bitch and defy the winnings, because after taxes you'd only receive 6.

If you have a cholesteral blockage in your heart and you are told that operation success is not absolute.....do you decide that "the risks are far greater" with the operation then living with a heart condition? After the operation, are you not supposed to be winded, recovering, scarred, and changed? There was no way to avoid this fight. It didn't matter where it took place. As long as it was in the Middle East where change must occur. How many more Presidents and how much more oppression and digression was to take place before we stepped into this civilization according to your time table?

 

[MSgt]

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

Ok, then I won't stoop to winning by pointing out that the Saudis engage in human trafficking and forced prostitution. If you want to "free the women" take your beef up with the Saudis.

So only the Saudis? This argument you love to comfort yourself in is weak. The argument that evil is in other places so we shouldn't have hit Saddam. The argument that oppression and abuse is in other countries so we shouldn't have hit Saddam. You're "all or none" argument is the same copout argument countries like France use for their impotence.

 

[Iriemon]

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

So only the Saudis? This argument you love to comfort yourself in is weak. The argument that evil is in other places so we shouldn't have hit Saddam. The argument that oppression and abuse is in other countries so we shouldn't have hit Saddam. You're "all or none" argument is the same copout argument countries like France use for their impotence.

What do you propose is the goal? Save the world from (your version of) evil and dicatatorial government? Or reduce the risk of terrorist attack?

If the former, there were lots of better choices than Iraq for US intervention. If the latter, there were lots of better choices than Iraq for US intervention.

Your argument (they are all bad so might as well invade Iraq as anywhere else) does provide at least some basis for the Iraq invasion (though IMO not a very good one), which I can understand from the Bush apologists' point of view is necessary since the stated reasons were false.

 

[Iriemon]

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

Why do you keep saying this dumb ****? ****!!! There is no risk of Iraq becoming an Iranian theocracy.

I agree with that as long as US occupational forces are there to maintain a US approved government.

Otherwise, why would you suppose this is an impossibility? We are arming the Shiites as fast as we can. Are you claiming there are no Shiites in Iraq? No shiite fundamentalists? Or is your point the shiites are a democracy loving people so there is no risk they will take power in Iraq and turn it into a Shiite theocracy?

 

[Napoleon's Nightingale]

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

Why do you keep saying this dumb ****? ****!!! There is no risk of Iraq becoming an Iranian theocracy.

LOL is that so? We'll see about that..who knows what kind of ammendments the Sunni's will make now that they've been granted the opportunity. We all know that the Sunni's have close ties with Iran...they're dangerous to the democratic government.

Can't make an omelette without breaking eggs. If civil war is in Iraq's best interests, then so be it. I guarantee the Shi'ites win.

Ultimatley a civil war would be best however there are a number of possibly serious consequences that could result from one. The Sunni's would be backed by Iran and if Iran helps them the Kurds and Shi'ites are done for.

Destabilization? Where do you get your guesses? Study the region. Get away from your negative "story of the moment" media and study the region. The youth of Iran and the reformacists of Syria are all watching Iraq. Stop being such a pessimistic dooms day bringer. If you won 10 million dollars, you'd probably bitch and defy the winnings, because after taxes you'd only receive 6.

Simple political science. If Iraq is ultimatley a success then uprisings are likely to occur in several states in the middle east. If heads start rolling and governments start toppling there would be total chaos ie the destabalization of the middle east. It's a big risk and one with serious consequences. Anyone who thinks this Iraq escapade is stabalizing the middle east is a pinhead. The introduction of a democracy into a region which has never experianced it is nothing but an irritant to an already aggitated region of the world.

If you have a cholesteral blockage in your heart and you are told that operation success is not absolute.....do you decide that "the risks are far greater" with the operation then living with a heart condition? After the operation, are you not supposed to be winded, recovering, scarred, and changed?

We're talking about millions of lives here not 1..the risks are definatley too great. If my getting surgery would have a risk of putting other lives at risk I would not have it.

There was no way to avoid this fight. It didn't matter where it took place. As long as it was in the Middle East where change must occur. How many more Presidents and how much more oppression and digression was to take place before we stepped into this civilization according to your time table?

There was no need to step into Iraq full force. There was plenty of opposition to Saddam which should have been the primary force in the deposement of Saddam. Then the administration made the absolutley inane mistake of disbanding the Iraqi armed forces instead of using them to provide security for Iraq. I agree that Saddam had to go at some point...but not by our hands.

 

[MSgt]

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

I agree with that as long as US occupational forces are there to maintain a US approved government.

Otherwise, why would you suppose this is an impossibility? We are arming the Shiites as fast as we can. Are you claiming there are no Shiites in Iraq? No shiite fundamentalists? Or is your point the shiites are a democracy loving people so there is no risk they will take power in Iraq and turn it into a Shiite theocracy?

Study the region. I'll just re-post an earlier commentary. I tire of re-inventing the wheel.....

No matter how well things go in Iraq, count on fresh predictions of catastrophe. First, the war was going to be a bloodbath. Next, the occupation was bound to fail. Then, Iraq's first free elections were going to be a disaster. Held on schedule, the elections were remarkably successful. Iraqis risked their lives to cast ballots. After this, the new Iraqi Constitution was going to be voted down. Knowing what I know of the social politics of the country, this too will prove the voices of doom wrong. Now the voices that have been wrong about everything else insist Iraq will become "another Iran."

That's dead wrong. Part of the problem is ignorance by some in the news media. Columnists write about the topic of the moment, whether they understand the subject or not. News shows fill segments with talking heads, few of whom have firsthand experience. Far more disheartening are American partisans who would rather see Iraq fail miserably than allow the Bush administration a success. But Iraq will not become a second Iran.

Although a coalition backed by the senior Shiite clergy won nearly half the votes, Tehran won't dominate Baghdad. Iraqi Shiites have deep differences with their Iranian counterparts. The ethnic rivalry between Arabs and Persians predates the coming of Islam. Saddam Hussein trusted his Arab Shiite soldiers to fight their Iranian co-religionists. Did Christianity unite Europe's hereditary enemies? Of course not.

Will the new Iraq have ties to Iran? Of course. Iraqis have to live with their restive neighbor. Even the pro-American Kurds will seek a functional cross-border relationship. As governor of Texas, George W. Bush developed useful ties with his Mexican counterparts, but he didn't sell Texas back to Mexico. During Saddam's reign of terror, many Iraqis, both Shiite clerics and common citizens, found asylum in Iran. When Saddam gassed the Kurds, Iran opened its borders to thousands of terrified refugees. And trade, legal and illegal, has continued down the centuries. But Iran's government of mullahs will never be a model for Iraq.

Iraq's key clerics understand that the Iranian model has failed. Far from inaugurating a perfect society, the tyranny of the mullahs alienated the young from religion and generated cynicism toward the clergy. Ayatollah Khomeini's revolution brutalized Islam. Iraq's mullahs likely will press for greater social strictures than we would like to see, but they're not going to bind themselves to an Iranian government that they view as living on borrowed time. There's a greater likelihood that Iraq's free elections will inspire the people of Iran. About 70% of Iran's population is younger than 30, and disenchanted. Iraqi democracy may prove the downfall of Iran's mullahs, not the other way around.

 

[MSgt]

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

Simple political science. If Iraq is ultimatley a success then uprisings are likely to occur in several states in the middle east. If heads start rolling and governments start toppling there would be total chaos ie the destabalization of the middle east. It's a big risk and one with serious consequences. Anyone who thinks this Iraq escapade is stabalizing the middle east is a pinhead. The introduction of a democracy into a region which has never experianced it is nothing but an irritant to an already aggitated region of the world.

The Iraq escapade is not stabilizing the Middle East. There should be no arguing with this. What is occuring is a minor destabilization, which is perfectly natural with change. If the youth of Iran take control of their lives, as surmounting opposition is strengthened, then this too will be a minor destabilization. In Syria, where 17,000 prisoners are feared dead and buried in mass graves, reformacists are running for their lives. A military strike at the Syrian military and then a retreat as fast as the assault occurs, will enable Syria to minorly destabilize as well as the social reformacist shape their own new government. Without Middle Eastern change, we might as well do nothing against this "War on terror" and simply arrest some terrorists every so often, because they will continue to come from this civilization and American civilians will continue to me murdered, only the attacks will get worse. Israel is a part of this region and they are the only democratic nation there. Democracy is not unheard of and it's not so much the people that oppose it. It is their ruling elite, Mullahs, and governments that warn them of the "evils" of the democratic western world.

Then the administration made the absolutley inane mistake of disbanding the Iraqi armed forces instead of using them to provide security for Iraq.

How could this not occur? "Here is your freedom Iraqis...by the way...the Iraqi military units that abused and raped in your villages and towns are still in charge in your villages and towns." "Also, U.S. Marines and soldiers...pay no attention to the Iraqi military now. Just pretend you didn't spend the last 28 days killing them and defending against them." The disbanding had to occur. A fresh start after Saddam was in order.

 

[Iriemon]

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

Study the region. I'll just re-post an earlier commentary. I tire of re-inventing the wheel.....
...
Iraqi democracy may prove the downfall of Iran's mullahs, not the other way around.

Well, that certainly "proves" there's "no risk" to me.

Reviewing the post, I might agree that Iraq probably won't become an "Iranian theocracy" per se -- but that is a different question as to whether there is a risk of it becoming a Shiite Islamic theocracy

 

[MSgt]

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

Well, that certainly "proves" there's "no risk" to me.

Reviewing the post, I might agree that Iraq probably won't become an "Iranian theocracy" per se -- but that is a different question as to whether there is a risk of it becoming a Shiite Islamic theocracy

One cannot deliver proof or facts of things to come. All you can do is look at the situation and speculate while using current facts to guide you. There is every reason to believe in my assessments (and plenty who are actually paid to study the region) over the assessments of individuals that see every mortar drop in the media as the end of the world. There is always risk. There is also risk in doing nothing and continuing to turn our backs as we receive our oil and the elite continue to oppress their citizens. These are the things that have driven desperate men to blame their failures on us in the Middle East.

It won't matter if it becomes a Shi'ite Islamic theocracy. It will still be democratic and far from Khomeini's vision. It will not reflect on what we want to see, but a willingness to persue the future and escape from the oppressive regime status that defines other parts of the Middle East is a step in the right direction and against what the extremists are currently coming from throughout the region. Don't forget who in the Middle East wants Iraq to fail and the vast majority of Muslims that are wanting and waiting for it to succeed, especially in Syria and Iran.