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.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.
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.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.
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
Exactly!ProudAmerican said: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.
How many times did he throw out the inspectors?Billo_Really said: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 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.Originally posted by mpg:
How many times did he throw out the inspectors?
Was this justified?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
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.
john831 said: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.
ProudAmerican said: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.
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?
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.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.
ProudAmerican said:thanks for making my point.
Us invading Afghanistan prior to 9-11, and therefor 9-11 never happening, WOULD BE THE PERFECT SCENARIO.
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.
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.
DivineComedy said: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:
“....
john831 said: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.
sure I do. you just dont agree with it.You have no point.
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.Bust received intelligence about 9-11 did nothing about it.
tell me exactly, specifically which middle easter affair we got involved in that gave them the right to commit 9-11How about this scenario, the U.S. stayed the hell out of Middle Eastern affairs? Giving them no reason to have them attack us.
war and a criminal trial are tow different things. people that cant see the difference really do baffle me.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.
wow, memos and information we ALMOST had. yep, that sure as hell convinces me. LMAO.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 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!!!!.Again if this is the true intent of Iraq why not Saudi Arabia, Iran, Pakistan, North Korea?
well after all, I am and evil, right wing, Christian conservative.That is probably one of the most cold-hearted things I have ever heard.
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 saying in other words to kill thousands in order to protect a few.
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.
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.
tell me exactly, specifically which middle easter affair we got involved in that gave them the right to commit 9-11
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.
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.
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.
well after all, I am and evil, right wing, Christian conservative.
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.
ProudAmerican said: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.
easyt65 said:...
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:
...
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?