Justified? (1 Viewer)

[john831]

There hasn't been one of these in a while, so I'll start another one: was the Iraq War justified? I personally don't think so; I don't buy the whole "we are liberating the Iraqi people" argument. Sure, Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator, but no more brutal than Darfur, North Korea, etc. We can't just go around taking out dictators that we think are brutal, especially when it comes at a cost of thousands of American lives and millions of dollars, and distracts the government from focusing on domestic programs to make life for Americans easier. I also don't like it when congressman pull out the emotional appeal and say something like "have you forgotten 911 so soon?" The bipartisan 911 Commission concluded that Saddam had no ties to al Qaeda, and none of the hijackers were Iraqis; I'm confused over why when Islamic fundamentalists attack our country, we in turn attack a secular government with no ties to these terrorists. And before you return with a quote from some senator saying that Saddam probably had WMDs, the Congressman were not entitled to all the sensitive documents regarding the issue that the president was; therefore, its highly possible that he withheld some information to make his case stronger. I think that, when religious fundamentalists who attack the US, we should respond not by taking action that would make them dislike us even more, as going into Iraq has, and ultimately waging a massive culture war, but rather we should try to stop terrorism at the source, certainly not iraq, and try to act in the country's best interests and not the financial interests of the president

 

[mpg]

There are other brutal dictators as you pointed out, but Saddam violated the conditions of the ceasefire. That gave us the legal authority to end the ceasefire. We still weren't required to end the ceasefire, so we had to decide what was best for national security and world peace. Saddam wouldn't allow the inspectors to do their job, so we had to assume that he had WMDs. In a post 9/11 world, the idea of allowing someone like Saddam to have WMDs didn't seem like such a good idea. His brutality toward the Iraqi people was also something that had to be considered.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by mpg
There are other brutal dictators as you pointed out, but Saddam violated the conditions of the ceasefire. That gave us the legal authority to end the ceasefire. We still weren't required to end the ceasefire, so we had to decide what was best for national security and world peace. Saddam wouldn't allow the inspectors to do their job, so we had to assume that he had WMDs. In a post 9/11 world, the idea of allowing someone like Saddam to have WMDs didn't seem like such a good idea. His brutality toward the Iraqi people was also something that had to be considered.

What the hell are you talking about? He violated the cease fire? We ran over 2000 sorties dropping over 600 bombs on over 300 pre-selected targets when we were telling the entire world we were enforcing the no-fly zone. So what are you saying, they didn't have the right to defend themselves? That it's OK for us to bomb them to try to provoke a war? And it was not our call to make. That was the UNSC's decision, not ours. At the time we attacked, UN inspectors said Iraq was complying with all requirements of the resolutions. And don't act like we care about Iraqis, because we don't! Just ask GySgt.

 

[ProudAmerican]

If we had gone into afghanistan in 2000 we would have heard the very same arguments from the left

they arent a threat
they havent attacked us
they dont have the ability to harm us

well, whamo, here comes 09-11-2001

think of what may have been prevented if we had gone after the taliban and al queda BEFORE 9-11

yes, the war in Iraq is absolutely justified.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by Proud American:
If we had gone into afghanistan in 2000 we would have heard the very same arguments from the left

they arent a threat
they havent attacked us
they dont have the ability to harm us

well, whamo, here comes 09-11-2001

think of what may have been prevented if we had gone after the taliban and al queda BEFORE 9-11

yes, the war in Iraq is absolutely justified.

The flaw in your logic is that the Taliban did not attack us. But we told them in meetings 5 weeks before 9/11 that if they didn't agree to the pipeline in their country we were going to attack.

US representatives told the Taliban,
"EITHER YOU ACCEPT OUR OFFER OF A CARPET OF GOLD, OR WE WILL BURY YOU UNDER A CARPET OF BOMBS"
- Published November 15, 2001 by the "http://www.ips.org/" : U.S. Policy Towards Taliban Influenced by Oil - Authors, by Julio Godoy, Paris

 

[DivineComedy]

If we had gone into afghanistan in 2000 we would have heard the very same arguments from the left

they arent a threat
they havent attacked us
they dont have the ability to harm us

well, whamo, here comes 09-11-2001

think of what may have been prevented if we had gone after the taliban and al queda BEFORE 9-11

yes, the war in Iraq is absolutely justified.

Exactly!

“Never before has our nation enjoyed, at once, so much prosperity and social progress with so little internal crisis and so few external threats.” (2000 State of the Union Address Thursday, January 27, 2000)

“War? We ain't got no war! We don't need no war! I don't have to show you any stinking war!” {Bill Clinton 1998}

I don’t know how many times I posted this after 911 and the “liberals” still didn’t get it:

“Throughout the year, the Taliban continued to host Usama Bin Ladin--indicted in November 1998 for the bombings of two US Embassies in East Africa--despite US and UN sanctions, a unanimously adopted United Security Council resolution, and other international pressure to deliver him to stand trial in the United States or a third country. The United States repeatedly made clear to the Taliban that they will be held responsible for any terrorist acts undertaken by Bin Ladin while he is in their territory.”
http://www.state.gov/www/global/terrorism/1999report/asia.html#Afghanistan

But, did they want to get it?

Saddam got it though:

“The danger that may threaten any people or nation, does not call upon the people in charge to lead the way against this danger only, but also to analyze its reasons in view of abating them, or treating those reasons radically, to eliminate them so that they would never surge again.
I am sorry to say that the general approach in this direction is still weak, so far. Western governments are the first in this phenomena of weakness. Some voices have risen on the part of some peoples, journalists, writers, and, in a very restricted way, the voices of those who are preparing themselves, in the shadow, to replace the rulers there. Nevertheless, the latter are still hesitant voices that deal with the situation in the light of the balance of interests of the posts they expect to occupy, and of the influence of the centers of power. As for the United States, the hope in the awareness of its people is greater than it is in its Administrations, if the people could see the facts as they are, unless these Administrations are set free from the conclusive influence of Zionism, and other centers of influence which serve their own interests that are associated with their well-known goals.” (Saddam Hussein Shabban 13, 1422 H. October 29, 2001.)


“On the basis of what we said about Iraq while confronting aggressions, the world now needs to abort the US aggressive schemes, including its aggression on the Afghan people, which must stop.
Again we say that when someone feels that he is unjustly treated, and no one is repulsing or stopping the injustice inflicted on him, he personally seeks ways and means for lifting that justice. Of course, not everyone is capable of finding the best way for lifting the injustice inflicted on him. People resort to what they think is the best way according to their own ideas, and they are not all capable of reaching out for what is beyond what is available to arrive to the best idea or means.
To find the best way, after having found their way to God and His rights, those who are inflicted by injustice need not to be isolated from their natural milieu, or be ignored deliberately, or as a result of mis-appreciation, by the officials in this milieu. They should, rather, be reassured and helped to save themselves, and their surroundings.” (Saddam Hussein Shabban 13, 1422 H. October 29, 2001.)

Saddam knew who his friends were.

 

[mpg]

What the hell are you talking about? He violated the cease fire? We ran over 2000 sorties dropping over 600 bombs on over 300 pre-selected targets when we were telling the entire world we were enforcing the no-fly zone. So what are you saying, they didn't have the right to defend themselves? That it's OK for us to bomb them to try to provoke a war? And it was not our call to make. That was the UNSC's decision, not ours. At the time we attacked, UN inspectors said Iraq was complying with all requirements of the resolutions. And don't act like we care about Iraqis, because we don't! Just ask GySgt.

How many times did he throw out the inspectors?

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by mpg:
How many times did he throw out the inspectors?

How many times did we throw out inspectors? It's interesting you don't even deal with us dropping that much ordinance during a cease fire and then lying about it.

 

[ProudAmerican]

whats interesting is liberals that refuse to answer a simple question with anything other than a question.

again,

if we had attacked afghanistan before 9-11 we would have heard the EXACT SAME EXCUSES FOR NOT GOING TO WAR that we hear about Iraq today.

some people choose to toy with the lives of innocent Americans

and some people choose to protect them.

its just that simple.

 

[Billo_Really]

An open letter from an Iraqi citizen to George Bush.

Dear Mr. President,

Your deeds in Iraq are bearing fruit and your efforts have not gone in vain. ‘The new Iraq’ is a product of your persistence and perseverance. And because of you and your deeds, ‘democracy’ is now deeply rooted in Iraq. Because of you we have gained nothing and lost almost everything – may God bless you for it? We now enjoy the privileges of your humanitarian experiences and because of that our country has returned to the pre-industrial age which your father had predicted for us. Our country now has no drinking water, no electricity and no fuel. But what do we need these luxuries for at a time we are relishing the taste of ‘the democracy’ you have given us. You may want to know that we are in a tunnel without light whose end will be the disintegration of our country into shaky statelets that will be easy to devour by others.

Congratulations Mr. President.
Yours faithfully,
Sammak Burhan

http://www.azzaman.com/english/index.asp?fname=opinion\2006-01-16\154.htm

Was this justified?

 

[john831]

whats interesting is liberals that refuse to answer a simple question with anything other than a question.

again,

if we had attacked afghanistan before 9-11 we would have heard the EXACT SAME EXCUSES FOR NOT GOING TO WAR that we hear about Iraq today.

some people choose to toy with the lives of innocent Americans

and some people choose to protect them.

its just that simple.

According to your logic, we should invade North Korea, Iran, and any other country in which there is a remote threat of attack just so we can prevent another 9-11. As for toying with the lives of innocent Americans, I find it ironic that you feel that Bush is protecting Americans by sending them off to die in a foreign country for no apparent reason.

 

[LittleMammoth]

According to your logic, we should invade North Korea, Iran, and any other country in which there is a remote threat of attack just so we can prevent another 9-11. As for toying with the lives of innocent Americans, I find it ironic that you feel that Bush is protecting Americans by sending them off to die in a foreign country for no apparent reason.

Or Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. Two of our biggest "Allies" in the war on terror are some of the biggest threats.

if we had attacked afghanistan before 9-11 we would have heard the EXACT SAME EXCUSES FOR NOT GOING TO WAR that we hear about Iraq today.

Iraq had no direct link with Afghanistan. Nor were they a real threat. If we wanted to go after a real threat why did we not go after North Korea, a country openly trying to get nuclear weapons and prepared to use them on the U.S.? Why not first go to Iran? A country that almost the entire western world sees as more of a threat? We had Iraq on their knees there was no need for Iraq. If we had actual evidence, something that is missing in the case of Iraq, of a true threat from afghanistan then I do not believe most Democrats would have been against a preventitive war. As you probably noticed

Again give the facts on the threat as opposed to lies, misleading, ignorance of intelligence, propogandized fear mongoring, and utter bull. Make sure the war is just as opposed to trying to justify it after.

some people choose to toy with the lives of innocent Americans

and some people choose to protect them.

its just that simple.

You said it yourself, lets protect our innocent soldiers from the atrocity of Iraq and bring them home.

And on a final note Conservatives say this war was about the potential threat. I understand the concept of get them before they get us. But how come we can take troops away from our immediate threat, Osama in Afghanistan, and pour them towards a potential threat? I believe imminent danger is much more important to protect against then possible danger.

 

[ashurbanipal]

if we had attacked afghanistan before 9-11 we would have heard the EXACT SAME EXCUSES FOR NOT GOING TO WAR that we hear about Iraq today.

Well, since we're discussing counterfactual examples (i.e. if we had done something we didn't actually do, namely, attack Afganistan on 9-10-01), let's bring in another counterfactual: suppose we had invaded Afganistan on the supposition of threat, but it turns out that 9/11 never happened and would never have happened?

Or, to make it even more simple: Ever read the story Minority Report by Orson Scott Card, or seen the movie that Spielberg made from it? It's a pretty interesting premise, but I'll leave the literary analysis aside and get to the point. The point of the story is that, even if you receive information in advance about a crime that someone is going to commit, you're still just human and you may end up misinterpretting that information. And furthermore, no matter how certain you may be that someone intends to attack, you can't ever really be 100% certain until they actually do. This is why we don't arrest people for saying they're going to kill someone, even though we know that sometimes those threats are carried out. Had we gone into Afganistan on 9-10-01, no matter how great the probability that on 9-11-01 the attacks would happen (even if it's 100%), we would not have been justified. Justification only came with the attacks.

It might be objected that all this moral reasoning aside, going after our enemies pre-emptively keeps us alive, and so what if we get it wrong sometimes and kill people who had no intention of harming us? We're alive, and they're dead so they don't care.

I say that in that case we're only tricked into believing that we're alive. People who live in such perpetual fear that they have to kill others that make them feel threatened are not alive and can never know the things that make life worth living. Because to kill innocent people, you have to shut off your ability to feel compassion, love, charity, and guilt. Do that, and you're a robot--you're a biological machine walking around. You've no soul anymore; you're just waiting for and hoping against the time when you will break down and die, and though you know this is inevitable, you could never bring yourself to live anyway.

Bill-o makes an interesting point: we announced at an economic summit in Moscow in March 2001 that we had plans to go to war with Afganistan in October of that year. This was documented by several European newspapers (not just Russian ones). If nothing else, this ought to make people wonder.

 

[ProudAmerican]

Well, since we're discussing counterfactual examples (i.e. if we had done something we didn't actually do, namely, attack Afganistan on 9-10-01), let's bring in another counterfactual: suppose we had invaded Afganistan on the supposition of threat, but it turns out that 9/11 never happened and would never have happened?

thanks for making my point.

Us invading Afghanistan prior to 9-11, and therefor 9-11 never happening, WOULD BE THE PERFECT SCENARIO.

Or, to make it even more simple: Ever read the story Minority Report by Orson Scott Card, or seen the movie that Spielberg made from it?

No, but I have read "AMerican Soldier" By Tommy Franks. Its actually FACTUAL and pertains to the topic at hand in a much more real way.

It might be objected that all this moral reasoning aside, going after our enemies pre-emptively keeps us alive, and so what if we get it wrong sometimes and kill people who had no intention of harming us? We're alive, and they're dead so they don't care.

if you had absolute proof that Iraq had no intentions, and no means of harming us, then I would be on your side. the simple fact is all you have is your OPINION of these things.

I could have told you on 9-10-2001 that Alqueda did not have the means to harm America, and it would have been unfounded OPINION only.

no one ever dreamed they could have carried out that attack in the manner they did.

I for the life of me cant figure out how obviously intelligent people cant understand that after 9-11, we must in the future act BEFORE catastrophies happen. sometimes we may be wrong.....(not for a second conceding this is the case with Iraq)......but being wrong before Americans are killed is better than being right after there is a smoking hole in the middle of NYC.

 

[LittleMammoth]

thanks for making my point.

Us invading Afghanistan prior to 9-11, and therefor 9-11 never happening, WOULD BE THE PERFECT SCENARIO.

You have no point. Bust received intelligence about 9-11 did nothing about it. And you want me to believe that consersvatives would have gone to Afghanistan? How about this scenario, the U.S. stayed the hell out of Middle Eastern affairs? Giving them no reason to have them attack us.

if you had absolute proof that Iraq had no intentions, and no means of harming us, then I would be on your side. the simple fact is all you have is your OPINION of these things.

This point has absolutely no meaning since its was there job to have absolute proof that Iraq had intentions. Your point is invalid and void. Try again.

no one ever dreamed they could have carried out that attack in the manner they did.

How about the memo that was stated something along the lines of Al-Queda to fly planes into WTC? How about the information that Israel almost definitely gave us yet we did nothing?

I for the life of me cant figure out how obviously intelligent people cant understand that after 9-11, we must in the future act BEFORE catastrophies happen.

Again if this is the true intent of Iraq why not Saudi Arabia, Iran, Pakistan, North Korea? These offer much more real threats then Iraq ever did. So please don't make this argument either still it is warrantless and not effective.

sometimes we may be wrong.....(not for a second conceding this is the case with Iraq)......but being wrong before Americans are killed is better than being right after there is a smoking hole in the middle of NYC.

That is probably one of the most cold-hearted things I have ever heard. You are saying in other words to kill thousands in order to protect a few. Furthermore it would be killing innocent soldiers on either side of the conflict, such is the case in Iraq. This logic is no worse then the logic of a terrorist.

 

[Iriemon]

Exactly!

“Never before has our nation enjoyed, at once, so much prosperity and social progress with so little internal crisis and so few external threats.” (2000 State of the Union Address Thursday, January 27, 2000)

“War? We ain't got no war! We don't need no war! I don't have to show you any stinking war!” {Bill Clinton 1998}

I don’t know how many times I posted this after 911 and the “liberals” still didn’t get it:

“....

These statements justified invading Iraq?

They seem relatively benign to me.

“The danger that may threaten any people or nation, does not call upon the people in charge to lead the way against this danger only, but also to analyze its reasons in view of abating them, or treating those reasons radically, to eliminate them so that they would never surge again."


A nation should analyze the reasons for a danger that may threaten a nation in view of abating them.

Actually sounds like pretty good advice to me.

I guess for the warmonger crowd, that line you are supposed to toe is pretty damn narrow.

 

[Captain America]

According to your logic, we should invade North Korea, Iran, and any other country in which there is a remote threat of attack just so we can prevent another 9-11. As for toying with the lives of innocent Americans, I find it ironic that you feel that Bush is protecting Americans by sending them off to die in a foreign country for no apparent reason.

Almost 7 out of 10 Americans agree with you. The other three drive a Ford F-150. :rofl

 

[ProudAmerican]

You have no point.

sure I do. you just dont agree with it.

Bust received intelligence about 9-11 did nothing about it.

more leftist OPINION. if it was so clear 9-11 was going to happen, why didnt the folks on your side of the isle stop it.

How about this scenario, the U.S. stayed the hell out of Middle Eastern affairs? Giving them no reason to have them attack us.

tell me exactly, specifically which middle easter affair we got involved in that gave them the right to commit 9-11

This point has absolutely no meaning since its was there job to have absolute proof that Iraq had intentions. Your point is invalid and void. Try again.

war and a criminal trial are tow different things. people that cant see the difference really do baffle me.
if you think we must have the same standard of proof in a war that we must have in a criminal trial for someone that held up a 7-11, then I pray you are never in charge of protecting this nation.
we didnt have PROOF that the twin towers would be destroyed untill AFTER 3,000 innocent people had lost their lives.
nice.

How about the memo that was stated something along the lines of Al-Queda to fly planes into WTC? How about the information that Israel almost definitely gave us yet we did nothing?

wow, memos and information we ALMOST had. yep, that sure as hell convinces me. LMAO.
again, NO ONE EVER DREAMED they would actually be able to carry out such an attack untill AFTER it was too late.

Again if this is the true intent of Iraq why not Saudi Arabia, Iran, Pakistan, North Korea?

I love the strategy that says if we go after one, we must go after all. and if we dont go after all, we shouldnt go after anyone. BRILLIANT!!!!.
the fact is if we did go after the countries you mentioned, the left would STILL wine and moan and cry. its what they do best.

That is probably one of the most cold-hearted things I have ever heard.

well after all, I am and evil, right wing, Christian conservative.

You are saying in other words to kill thousands in order to protect a few.

actually, what I am saying is, DO WHATEVER YOU MUST DO TO PROTECT THE LIVES OF INNOCENT AMERICAN CIVILIANS. its why we pay taxes. and if muslem, terror supporting, radicals have to die in the process, im ok with that.

See im one of those radical, evil people that think the Quran commands radical muslems to kill everyone that doesnt agree with them. If the ME wants to show they world they care, then they need to start weeding out the radicals doing the terrorist acts. If they wont do it, then we must do it for them. and if we have to do it for them, and innocent people die because they didnt take care of the problem themselves......well.....it sucks to be them.

 

[easyt65]

You make a lot of @$$umptions in your initial post without ever posting any links to justify any of your claims. There are a lot of debatable/questionable claims in that initial post.

For instance, you made the claim that the 9/11 commission was 'bipartisan'. Many beg to differ with you on that point:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_Commission#Claims_of_bias_within_the_commission

As far as not having a thread regarding this discussion for quite a while, there are actually numerous on-going arguments about the topic. Many who have already responded know that many of the claims you make have been challenged, from me personally/especially in other posts in which I have offered a pleathora of links to dispute your claims that AQ did not have ties to Hussein. Such links include:

http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1182042/posts

Hussein’s Link to Bin Ladden/Al Qaeda
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,85256,00.html
http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=092503F
http://weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/378fmxyz.asp
http://weeklystandard.com/Content/Pu...5/804yqqnr.asp
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/...in551632.shtml
Mother of all Connections:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Conten...5/804yqqnr.asp


"the documents The bipartisan 911 Commission concluded that Saddam had no ties to al Qaeda, and none of the hijackers were Iraqis"

".... And before you return with a quote from some senator saying that Saddam probably had WMDs, "

Ok, how about THESE links, just a few of the many:

Russians Moved Hussein’s WMD:
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/arti...023.shtml?s=lh
http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/r...?ArtNum=127232


Saddam’s General: “WMD in Syria!”
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=48827

2nd Iraqi Commander Confirms WMD:
http://discuss.extremetech.com/forum.../ShowPost.aspx

Secret Saddam Tapes reveal WMDs Existed:
http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/Inve...307&page=1

Secret tapes Reveal Hussein had WMD:
http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/156129.php
Tapes show Hussein had WMD
http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/156129.php
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=\Nation\archive\200602\NAT20060215a.html
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=\\Nation\\archive\\200602\\NAT20060215c.html

Iraqi WMD To Syria
http://www.chronwatch.com/content/contentDisplay.asp?aid=19678 – Gen Sada
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=48827 – Al-Tikriti
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2006/2/18/233023.shtml?s=lh
http://www.nysun.com/article/24480
http://assyriatimes.com/engine/modules/news/article.php?storyid=3163

So, again, you begin the thread by making many declarations based off opinions and assumptions on your part while offering no justification/links to back them up.....but thanks for ANOTHER thread on this issue!

 

[PeteEU]

Justified? Yes but..

Saddam was a brutal dictator and he did use WMD on his own people. He killed thousands (Or millions if you listen to Neo Cons). He threatened nations and invaded nations. He supported Palestinians and hence in many American eyes he supported terrorists although many of Americas allies did exactly the same support and more for the Palestinians, including paying the families of sucide bombers. But getting rid of any dictator is a good thing as long as one evaluates the consequences beforehand.

Did he break sanctions.. yes with the full knowledge of the UN security council, and the goverments involved and this includes the US and UK goverments. The so called Oil for Food scandal has taken the headlines and yet the tens of billions made on illegal oil transaction into Jordan and Turkey are almost ignored... Oil for food was peanuts compared to the illegal oil transactions. So one can not really blame Saddam for attempting to help his people or himself and the world letting him do it under the noses with thier full unoffical support. Blame the politicans who did not plug the hole and frankly that would put a lot of high placed politicans and companies behind bars.. so that aint gonna happen.

Did he shoot at allied planes over the no fly zone.. yes and the allies fired back. This had been going on for 10 years. Talk about delayed reaction.

Did he allow UN inspectors instant access to all sites.... no but that can easily be explained in the mentality of Saddam in not wanting his main enemy, Iran to gain sensitive information. Of course it could also be explained by him hiding WMD. However the information at hand pre invasion could easily have given hints to the truth but that information was often ignored. The fact that in 1995 the head of the WMD program defected and stated that all WMD were destroyed in 1991/2 never really came out did it now? Plus would the US allow full access to outside inspections of its sensisitive military complexs and WMD areas? And in the end the UN it self said that it had gotten all the access it demanded even though some of it was delayed and not instant. But the UN was never allowed to continue the inspections even though the inspectors wanted to and recommened it.

There is plenty more, pro and cons but lets get to the real question as the invasion did happen and we are at the stage we are.

Should the invasion have happened to save the people of Iraq from a brutal dictator?... was it worth it?

No. Invading Iraq was the biggest geo political and global mistake since Hitler went into Russia. Iraq was never any real threat after 1991 and even after 9/11.

The real threat since 1979 has been Iran and Iraq was for years seen as the front line force to stop the spreading of radical Islam to the rest of the muslim world. Hence the propping up of Saddam by the CIA and Rumsfeldt and CO during the Reagan administration by selling them WMD material and know how. And yes he got weapons from Russia and other stuff from Europe.. dugh they were his trading partners. Everyone was involved but one can only be critical of those who continue to deny it to this day and only blame others.

Afganistan fell to radical islam and Pakistan is holding on only because of brutal dictator. Southern Russia is slowly falling too but the brutality of the Putin regime and previous regimes have stopped the tide for now. China is dealing with radical islamist near the Afganistan border and are hitting down hard. India is having problems with its radicals because of Pakistani influence.

Where did the hijackers of 9/11 and Osama get his inspiration for thier Jihad... from Saddam? .. no from Iran and the Mullahs in Tehran.

By invading Iraq and not having enough troops or a plan to maintain the status que of keeping Iran and its influence at bay, the Bush administration opened pandoras box and basicly played right into Irans hands. Congrats in giving Iran and its mullahs millions of new loyal followers and creating an area where terror and political/religious extremes can be practiced in the kaos. Osama and Co and Tehran could not have asked for a better solution.

Point is by destroying one evil, another evil was let out and given huge power.. thats like ******* in your pants to get warm.

 

[ProudAmerican]

According to your logic, we should invade North Korea, Iran, and any other country in which there is a remote threat of attack just so we can prevent another 9-11.

someone finally got it right!!!

while "invade" isnt the right term, "deal with them militarily" certainly is the right phrase.

As for toying with the lives of innocent Americans, I find it ironic that you feel that Bush is protecting Americans by sending them off to die in a foreign country for no apparent reason.

and this is where you got it completely wrong.

Bush is DEFINATELY protecting the lives of innocent American civilians by sending the military to do what they VOLUNTEERED to do.

The nonsense about it being "for no aparent reason" is so blindly partisan it isnt even funny. I think Bill Clinton was a womanizing moron, but I supported what little military action we actually got from him. To make the assertion that any president, no matter what party affiliation, would send our military into combat on a whim, and for no aparent reason, is just downright irresponsible.

 

[Davo]

more leftist OPINION. if it was so clear 9-11 was going to happen, why didnt the folks on your side of the isle stop it.

Cause Washington Democrats are like the 7 Dwarfs from Snow White...useless.

tell me exactly, specifically which middle easter affair we got involved in that gave them the right to commit 9-11

Israeli-Palestinian Conflict...it's the reason 99% of all Arabs hate us - Didnt you know?

war and a criminal trial are tow different things. people that cant see the difference really do baffle me.
if you think we must have the same standard of proof in a war that we must have in a criminal trial for someone that held up a 7-11, then I pray you are never in charge of protecting this nation.
we didnt have PROOF that the twin towers would be destroyed untill AFTER 3,000 innocent people had lost their lives.
nice.

I dont know about proof of the Towers being destroyed....But we do have proof they planned to destroy it - They attacked the towers in the mid 90s.

wow, memos and information we ALMOST had. yep, that sure as hell convinces me. LMAO.
again, NO ONE EVER DREAMED they would actually be able to carry out such an attack untill AFTER it was too late.

How is a plane being flown into a building a scenario the U.S. would have never looked at? Planes being used as bombs isnt that new of an idea. The Kamikazi did it in WW2.

I love the strategy that says if we go after one, we must go after all. and if we dont go after all, we shouldnt go after anyone. BRILLIANT!!!!.
the fact is if we did go after the countries you mentioned, the left would STILL wine and moan and cry. its what they do best.

No we should go after countries that actually pose a threat such as Syria, Korea and Saudi Arabia.

Did you know : Syria - Biggest exporter of terrorist in the world topped only by Saudi Arabia? Did you know Korea is trying to make WMDs?

well after all, I am and evil, right wing, Christian conservative.

Yes Yes You Are.

actually, what I am saying is, DO WHATEVER YOU MUST DO TO PROTECT THE LIVES OF INNOCENT AMERICAN CIVILIANS. its why we pay taxes. and if muslem, terror supporting, radicals have to die in the process, im ok with that.

Muslim* - And ummmm If they destroy innocent american lives...and we destroy innocent iraqi lives....how are we better then them? :|

See im one of those radical, evil people that think the Quran commands radical muslems to kill everyone that doesnt agree with them. If the ME wants to show they world they care, then they need to start weeding out the radicals doing the terrorist acts. If they wont do it, then we must do it for them. and if we have to do it for them, and innocent people die because they didnt take care of the problem themselves......well.....it sucks to be them.

Yes you are....and you probably think ID(Intelligent design is right). Where does it say we must solve every little problem the Middle East has? :|

 

[easyt65]

I am not sure if it was your intention, but you just ignored all my links and comments about WMD, the Al Qaeda Link, etc. :roll: There was justification for going in, and more and more evidence is coming out every day, as the release of the new tapes show.

When do we step in? Hitler started ransacking Europe and we never stepped in. What if we knew he was about to get Nuclear Missile technology, almost guaranteeing his ability to conquer the world? Would that be enough to justify our entrance into that war? Is the threat of a truely EVIL leader who despises your nation, promises to wipe your allies off the face of the map and promises victory over YOU after helping the perpetrators of 9/11 - is the threat of that leader getting his hands on Nukes enough to cause you to act? If not, when? Will you let him finish off what Hitler could not, Nuking Israel? yeah, I am talking about Iran now, but what about Hussein, a leader who had WMD and could have given it to Al Qaeda to use against us if he so chose. On the recently released tapes, you canhear Hussein talking about the possibility of the U.S. finding out where AQ got their WMD from if they gave such weapons to AQ and they used them against us. Hussein acknowledged that we would do what we did anyway - overthrow him and take his country. I am glad Hussein was smart enough not to do so, but now that the WMD has gone into Syria, you can bet HAMAS/Al Qaeda has it and will be willing to use it!

Instead of arguing 'No WMD', the Dems should be arguing that we are more at threat now than before the war. Hussein supposedy did not want to turn WMD over to AQ but sent it into Syria to avoid its capture, believing that he would probably go back into power after it was discovered there were 'No WMD'. His shipping it into Syria has put our country in more peril than before!

 

[Iriemon]

sure I do. you just dont agree with it.

actually, what I am saying is, DO WHATEVER YOU MUST DO TO PROTECT THE LIVES OF INNOCENT AMERICAN CIVILIANS. its why we pay taxes. and if muslem, terror supporting, radicals have to die in the process, im ok with that.

You are OK with killing the lives of another innocent citizens to protect Americans? You'd kill 100,000 innocents to protect one American?

If so, you are a terrorist.

 

[Iriemon]

...

As far as not having a thread regarding this discussion for quite a while, there are actually numerous on-going arguments about the topic. Many who have already responded know that many of the claims you make have been challenged, from me personally/especially in other posts in which I have offered a pleathora of links to dispute your claims that AQ did not have ties to Hussein. Such links include:
...

If Hussein had any knowledge or involvement in 9/11, or had actively supported Al-Queda (as opposed to just having "ties") why hasn't the adminstration come out and said this? Obviously they have a motive to do so to support the war.