Justified?

[LogicalReason]

I'm going to make a few comments and hopefully escape the thread without being pulled into the shouting taking place in here. :lol:

Now im not a very big bush supporter but I believe that he at least has the right idea. We should not wait for an attack, we should not wait for American lives to be lost before we act. Im not saying that we should go into every country that is remotely a threat and take them out. But if the choice comes for us to either stop an attack and be reviled for it by the rest of the world, or for us to wait until we are attacked and American innocents die before striking back. The obvious pick is to attack first.

We are already damned in the eyes of the world. Because of our wealth, our power, and yes our arrogance. No amount of acting weakly in order to not offend someone is going to change that. We are seen by many as infidels and murders. But I've actually traveled through parts of Europe and not as a tourist in the fancy American hotels but as just joe smoe and listened to what people said and how they felt about America (pays to be fluent in Italian and French). Although many oppose how we operate, many more don't. Its not the stark picture of everyone hating us that the media both left and right plays clips of each day... they want sensation and so they seek out the radicals.

Alright now I have to admit that was slightly off topic.. I started that pharagraph and completely lost what I was going to say... but I don't feel like deleting that because I think some of the people here need to hear it. Moving on to what I was going to say though.

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

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?

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

1. 99% of Arabs don't hate us. Its a safe bet to reverse that number to 1% of Arabs hate us hate us. Quite a few dislike us but the number that hate us and want us all to die and burn for being infidels is relatively small.

2. Yes we should go after Syria, Korea, and Saudi Arabia. We won't though because it would be Bush's political suicide to go into another war. Now if one of them attacks us.. and even a hundred American's die on American soil. The political positions will reverse and we will go to war when the public starts baying for terrorist blood.

3. Actually we don't destroy innocent iraqi lives. Radical terrorist iraqis destroy innocent iraqi lives. You ask how are we any better than them. We are better than them simply because we are having this discussion on this forum and in many many other places around this country. When we take life we regret it, we worry about it, hell we even yell at each other about it. They dont.

 

[LogicalReason]

You posted while I was posting

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.

I don't think he said he was OK with that at all. I think he said that he is OK with killing terrorists to protect Americans. Heres a question... You'd let 100,000 innocent Americans die to protect one terrorist?

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.

He didn't. Thats where Bush misled the public... at least indirectly.

But to the administrations credit.. they could probably have fabricated a good old conspiracy well enough that by the time we figured out he wasn't connected to 9/11... no one who'd witnessed the events on that day would be alive.

 

[ashurbanipal]

thanks for making my point.

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

I didn't make your point, because there was no "therefore" in what I said. So put on your abstract reasoning cap (you know, the one that everyone's supposed to get shortly after they turn 11) and try again:

The example was: suppose we had thought that 9-11 was imminent, and so on 9-10 invaded Afganistan, but it turns out that 9-11 was not imminent and we just killed a bunch of people and sent some of our soldiers to die and spent a lot of money for no reason? That's the danger of being too trigger-happy and is why we have to be careful.

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.

Too bad. You should try OSC. He's pretty good. And in the meantime, I explained the point pretty well.

In the meantime, please expand on the relevance of "American Solider" to the point under discussion.

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.

You can't prove a negative like this--how would it be possible, under any circumstance, to prove that Iraq had no intentions and means of harming us? Seems to me, however, that it should be the burden of those who are for the war to prove that they had the intentions and means. So far, no proof is forthcoming; what was offered as proof prior to the war turns out not only to have been false, but known to be false by those who started it.

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.

In this case, it would have been unfounded, because there was plenty of evidence to contradict it that was entirely credible. It wasn't a single retired Iraqi general making an highly dubious claim (on sheerly physical grounds) and with no evidence.

However, in the case of Iraq, it turns out to be well founded opinion.

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

Not really true--on the day of 9/11, there was a FEMA exercise going on that was a simulation of a terror attack where terrorists were to fly a plane into a building in New York. So, this is simply not correct. However, the fact of the exercise itself on the date of 9/11 is highly suggestive that someone knew what was going to happen...

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.

I agree, if we have a reasonable level of certainty that an attack is imminent. But if I'm the president, and I know that I've told my intelligence services to edit their reports to make Saddam look like a baddie, and when I've had to stretch things even after that, and I've had to dismiss my Secretary of State and his conviction that we're about to blunder, and if any number of other things I could bring up happen, then I should know that doesn't qualify as reasonable certainty.

Furthermore, we have a history of "pre-emptive defense," often against people who are shown later to have been no threat at all. This is the sort of thing that, if we'd stop, the world wouldn't be quite so PO'd at us.

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.

Well, if being wrong means that we have to kill other people, I'm not so sure it is better. Why would it be?

 

[easyt65]

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.

If I am Israel or in their shoes, a small country in the middle of a sea of hatred, and one of my neighboring countries has sworn to kill evet member of my people, to wipe us off the map, I would have no problem launching a pre-emptive attack to disable their nuclear program! I guess you would just wait for the nuclear cloud to engulf your home and nation?!

Terrorists killed Americans in the Kobat towers, Cole, and 2 African Embassy bombings, and nothing was done. As a result, the enemy grew stronger and bolder....then they killed MANY Americans in 1 attack on our home soil. They promised this would not be the last, that they would NEVER give up.

If I could locate the enemies home base, catching all of them in it, and could destroyall of them with 1 missile, you bet I would take them out! Instead, this new type of enemy scatters like cockroaches. If I have to chase them across the globe to kill them in order to prevent another 9/11, you better believe it - I would do what is necessary to protect my country, which is a President's sworn oath, the oath Clintonbroke by doing nothing after 4 seperate attacks that took American lives and eventually led to 9/11! I guess you would just continue to chant 'The war on terror is a Lie' and wait for the next 9/11.....and the next...and the next?!

 

[Davo]

1. 99% of Arabs don't hate us. Its a safe bet to reverse that number to 1% of Arabs hate us hate us. Quite a few dislike us but the number that hate us and want us all to die and burn for being infidels is relatively small.

I know a few soldiers in my family that will tell you different. And if the number of Arabs that hate us was 1% I dont think there would have been a celebration in half the countries in the Middle East when the WTC went down.

2. Yes we should go after Syria, Korea, and Saudi Arabia. We won't though because it would be Bush's political suicide to go into another war. Now if one of them attacks us.. and even a hundred American's die on American soil. The political positions will reverse and we will go to war when the public starts baying for terrorist blood.

I never said anything about going to those countries now that we're in Iraq. I was speaking more in the sense of "liberating" a country that we have complete unrefutable proof that it harbors terrorists such as Syria and Saudi Arabia. The public bayed for terrorist blood after 9/11....now they just want their kids/husbands/fathers home

3. Actually we don't destroy innocent iraqi lives. Radical terrorist iraqis destroy innocent iraqi lives. You ask how are we any better than them. We are better than them simply because we are having this discussion on this forum and in many many other places around this country. When we take life we regret it, we worry about it, hell we even yell at each other about it. They dont.

It's kinda funny you say we dont destroy innocent Iraqi lives....wasnt there an "incident" where...some plane dropped a bomb on a wedding? What about all those people who got bombs thrown on their heads during the initial bombings? I guess those were just casualties of war.

 

[Iriemon]

You posted while I was posting

I don't think he said he was OK with that at all. I think he said that he is OK with killing terrorists to protect Americans.

Fair enough, he may have been conditioning the word muslems with "terror supporting radicals.

Heres a question... You'd let 100,000 innocent Americans die to protect one terrorist?

Uh..... no.

He didn't. Thats where Bush misled the public... at least indirectly.

Agree

But to the administrations credit.. they could probably have fabricated a good old conspiracy well enough that by the time we figured out he wasn't connected to 9/11... no one who'd witnessed the events on that day would be alive.

You think they just didn't misrepresent that there was connection between Hussein and Al-Queda well enough?

 

[Iriemon]

If I am Israel or in their shoes, a small country in the middle of a sea of hatred, and one of my neighboring countries has sworn to kill evet member of my people, to wipe us off the map, I would have no problem launching a pre-emptive attack to disable their nuclear program! I guess you would just wait for the nuclear cloud to engulf your home and nation?!

Terrorists killed Americans in the Kobat towers, Cole, and 2 African Embassy bombings, and nothing was done. As a result, the enemy grew stronger and bolder....then they killed MANY Americans in 1 attack on our home soil. They promised this would not be the last, that they would NEVER give up.

If I could locate the enemies home base, catching all of them in it, and could destroyall of them with 1 missile, you bet I would take them out! Instead, this new type of enemy scatters like cockroaches. If I have to chase them across the globe to kill them in order to prevent another 9/11, you better believe it - I would do what is necessary to protect my country, which is a President's sworn oath, the oath Clintonbroke by doing nothing after 4 seperate attacks that took American lives and eventually led to 9/11! I guess you would just continue to chant 'The war on terror is a Lie' and wait for the next 9/11.....and the next...and the next?!

I certainly have no problem with killing terrorists.

I have a problem with killing a lot of innocent people based on a misrepresentation that their leader was supporting the terrorists.

 

[cnredd]

Justified?...

From a previous post...

If anyone thinks Iraq is the problem in and of itself, they are mistaken...

WMDs...rape rooms...Abu Gharib...Sunni vs. Shia vs. Kurd...etc, etc, etc...

All minor compared to the bigger threat...Middle Eastern values and ancient anti-western cultures...

Whether anyone likes it or not, Iraq is just the beginning...

America has long shied away from the "bigger picture" for DECADES while we watched Seinfeld & Friends and ate our Big Macs...The clouds were gathering, and the weathermen's voices haven't been loud enough to get anyone to understand that the storm was a brewin'...

Oh sure...You've seen INSTANCES of rainfall...but everyone just closed their eyes thinking the big hurricane would go away if they act like the hints of it never existed..."These instances were isolated!" people would say...not realizing that war has been proclaimed years earlier by the WHOLE DAMN CIVILIZATION...Mullahs and clerics telling their Middle Eastern Society how everything is the "West's" fault...stubbing your toe on a rock was a reason to kill an American or a European...

They yelled at us...We didn't listen...
They shot at our planes...We didn't listen...
They put out "fatwas" declaring to kill a Western on sight at anytime and anywhere...we yawned and went back to Playstation...

Then 9/11...

Some people STILL can't get it into their heads that this isn't "Osama vs. US and when we kill or capture Osama; game over."...They don't understand that if I snapped my fingers RIGHT NOW and every terrorist in the world died, the problem would NOT go away...

We NEED to change the ideology that breeds terrorism...Right now some are reading this and whining "Yeah but they're doing it wrong!...Going into Iraq MADE more terrorists!"...The ones who are reading my comments and thinking this would be naive to the "big picture."...If Iraq wasn't the reason an individual wanted to "die for Allah", whatever the next thing the Mullahs shoved down their throat would've been...

We're "infidels"...That's reason enough...They've been crying "Death to America" long before we were in Iraq...

So the ideology needs to be changed by doing two things...

Point #1) Short-term - Get rid of the threats by going after the ones who want to hurt us now..

Point #2) Long-term - Change their way of thinking before it builds into such a threat that by the time you realize it's at your door, it's way too late...

When GWB says that "it's better to fight them over there than in our streets", he isn't talking about the next few years...He's talking about the next few generations...

Hitler could've been cut off at the knees early on...but Europe continued to appease and appease while he continued to build and to build until it got to a point where he almost took over all of those that appeased him!...If anyone fought him five years earlier WWII would've been a blip on the radar...

Same thing...Hate to tell ya...Iraq is a blip...

Now the question of "Why Iraq?"...simple...Americans are stupid...

Look at everything I've written...You've seen members of this forum continue to shy away from it...Can you imagine how the country would react if GWB said the same things I've just written?...They'd tell him to stop bothering them while they go back to watching American Idol & Survivor/Detroit or wherever the hell they are this week...

If there's a major snowstorm reported five days in advance, why does everyone wait until 2 hours before the storm to go shopping and then bitch when there's no bread and milk?...How may people CHOOSE to sit through a hurricane because they think "It won't be that bad."?...How many people cross their fingers when they see the "engine light" go on and try to make it to work for the rest of the week?...Some people choose the path of least resistance even though the the one with more resistance now will prove the best path in the long run...

Bush would be saying "More resistance now...nip it in the bud before it gets out of hand."...But still some don't listen...they want the path of least resistance in spite of themselves...

So Bush pointed to the one place that Americans know well...Within that place was a popular enemy...One with a track record...Also, it is the one place that is centralized in Middle Eastern geography that was a positive to military entrance...

Some say Bush lied...Some say he didn't...I don't believe he did, but honestly?... I don't give a rat's ***...I couldn't care less if he said we needed to go Iraq because that's where the Fountain of Youth and Hoffa's body were...I see the "bigger picture"...I see through all of the mamby-pamby nit-pick political bullcrap...

We needed a "front door" (see Point #1 above) so we can actively proceed to Point #2 (above)...

So to answer your question...

do you believe that we still would have gone into Iraq if there was no documented brutality of Saddam Hussein's regime against the Iraqi people?

Yes...

Let's add a couple..

Was pointing that out only to get people on the same team with what we were going to do anyway?

Yes...

Do I believe that 911 opened up his eyes(and others...myself included) that the problem isn't relegated to one country, disproving that "Saddam didn't attack us, so we shouldn't have attacked him" bullshit?...

Yes...

Do I believe that if we don't fight now, the fight will come to Western Society later whether we like it or not?...

Yes...

Is this only the beginning?...

Yes...

Unless, of course, the appeasement crowd delivers a leader who will go back to the position the last four presidents took...which will allow the wounds inflicted on this perverted ideology time to heal...

Game...Set...Match...

 

[vandree]

How many times did he throw out the inspectors?

The inspectors were not thrown out by Saddam Hussein. They were withdrawn by the UN.

 

[LogicalReason]

I know a few soldiers in my family that will tell you different. And if the number of Arabs that hate us was 1% I dont think there would have been a celebration in half the countries in the Middle East when the WTC went down.

It's kinda funny you say we dont destroy innocent Iraqi lives....wasnt there an "incident" where...some plane dropped a bomb on a wedding? What about all those people who got bombs thrown on their heads during the initial bombings? I guess those were just casualties of war.

I have to confess I was never in Iraq. But quite a few of my friends were deployed there and have those that are back in the states tell me that although some of them hate us and want to kill us... the vast majority just want to not wake up in fear each morning.

Yes those were casualties of war. Poor innocents caught in the crossfire. But let me ask you this.. when was the last time you saw American soldiers purposely kill innocent Iraqis. How many deaths have you heard about where an American soldier walked up to an innocent Iraqi and shot him in the face. Or drove a car laiden with explosives into a group of children. The vast majority of innocent Iraqis have been killed by 'insurgents'.

 

[cnredd]

How many times did he throw out the inspectors?

The inspectors were not thrown out by Saddam Hussein. They were withdrawn by the UN.

What?...

Clinton: Iraq has abused its last chance

December 16, 1998
Web posted at: 8:51 p.m. EST (0151 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- From the Oval Office, President Clinton told the nation Wednesday evening why he ordered new military strikes against Iraq.

The president said Iraq's refusal to cooperate with U.N. weapons inspectors presented a threat to the entire world.

"Saddam (Hussein) must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons," Clinton said.

Operation Desert Fox, a strong, sustained series of attacks, will be carried out over several days by U.S. and British forces, Clinton said.

"Earlier today I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces," Clinton said.

"Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors," said Clinton.

The Iraqi leader was given a final warning six weeks ago, Clinton said, when Baghdad promised to cooperate with U.N. inspectors at the last minute just as U.S. warplanes were headed its way.

"Along with Prime Minister (Tony) Blair of Great Britain, I made it equally clear that if Saddam failed to cooperate fully we would be prepared to act without delay, diplomacy or warning," Clinton said.

The president said the report handed in Tuesday by Richard Butler, head of the United Nations Special Commission in charge of finding and destroying Iraqi weapons, was stark and sobering.

Iraq failed to cooperate with the inspectors and placed new restrictions on them, Clinton said. He said Iraqi officials also destroyed records and moved everything, even the furniture, out of suspected sites before inspectors were allowed in.

"Instead of inspectors disarming Saddam, Saddam has disarmed the inspectors," Clinton said.

"In halting our airstrikes in November, I gave Saddam a chance -- not a license. If we turn our backs on his defiance, the credibility of U.S. power as a check against Saddam will be destroyed," the president explained.

 

[Hoot]

What?...

I hate to sound like a broken record, but where in all those Clinton quotes does he advocate marching our young sons and daughters into downtown Baghdad?

You can strike and cripple suspected sites without risking putting boots on the ground. This is where Bush screwed up ...(to quote cheney...)

"Big Time."

 

[Davo]

Yes those were casualties of war. Poor innocents caught in the crossfire. But let me ask you this.. when was the last time you saw American soldiers purposely kill innocent Iraqis. How many deaths have you heard about where an American soldier walked up to an innocent Iraqi and shot him in the face. Or drove a car laiden with explosives into a group of children. The vast majority of innocent Iraqis have been killed by 'insurgents'.

Americans dont drive cars full of bombs into crowds of Iraqis....they just misfire so much that they dont have to. As for Iraqi's not being killed by Americans.

I think you're wrong.

Americans who voted for the war are just as responsible for those murders as the men that commited them. Those poor people lived normal peaceful lives until Bush decided to shake things up with erronous information and sent 100,000 marines to die. Same goes for the Germans who supported Hittler. The ones who supported Hittler but weren't in the war were just as responsible as the ones putting Jews in concentration camps if you do not belive this then you're just as blind as Bush is. If you for one second support this war and think those people are better off now then they were before the war you join the F-150 driving americans who wouldnt know **** if it was coming out of their noses.

 

[cnredd]

I hate to sound like a broken record, but where in all those Clinton quotes does he advocate marching our young sons and daughters into downtown Baghdad?

You can strike and cripple suspected sites without risking putting boots on the ground. This is where Bush screwed up ...(to quote cheney...)

"Big Time."

I think you're totally missing why I threw that out...

Read the first two posts I replied to first...

 

[LogicalReason]

Americans who voted for the war are just as responsible for those murders as the men that commited them. Those poor people lived normal peaceful lives until Bush decided to shake things up with erronous information and sent 100,000 marines to die. Same goes for the Germans who supported Hittler. The ones who supported Hittler but weren't in the war were just as responsible as the ones putting Jews in concentration camps if you do not belive this then you're just as blind as Bush is. If you for one second support this war and think those people are better off now then they were before the war you join the F-150 driving americans who wouldnt know **** if it was coming out of their noses.

Just a few minor points. No one voted for the war dumbass.. when was there a damn vote I must have missed it. I simply remember the goverment declaring war and invading.

Although their lives are probably worse off now.. normal peaceful lives what the hell are you on.

Now the casualties are pretty high but they are about 97 thousand short of your 100,000 dead marines.

 

[My_name_is_not_Larry]

Now the casualties are pretty high but they are about 97 thousand short of your 100,000 dead marines.

you might want to take off the extra 0 before anyone else sees that.

 

[Davo]

Now the casualties are pretty high but they are about 97 thousand short of your 100,000 dead marines.

Did I say there were 100,000 dead marines? All I said is he sent 100,000 marines to die. There's a difference.

As for the voting - my english isnt very good I ment it more in the sense of "agreed with" the war.

 

[My_name_is_not_Larry]

Did I say there were 100,000 dead marines? All I said is he sent 100,000 marines to die. There's a difference.

As for the voting - my english isnt very good I ment it more in the sense of "agreed with" the war.

sorry, I misread that.

 

[Iriemon]

Justified?...

From a previous post...

They should have finished the job in 1099, eh?

 

[Jas_656]

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.

Well This is making it sound a whole heap like It was the Country of Afganistan that planned the 9/11 attack. Remember Al Queda is Multi National so a fat lot of use I would have done 2 attack first.