Looting at Weapons Plants Was Systematic, Iraqi Says

[Batman]

"we declared war on Japan AND Germany" No, we didn't. We may have voted to answer the Germans declaration, but we didn't declare war on Germany. Can we get back on topic now? Could you explain your reason #3?

Okay... nighty night.

 

[anomaly]

Okay... nighty night.

Aren't you supposed to be fighting liberal quackery? Well I'm fighting conservative quackery. And your reason #3 (it was the right move, regardless) was complete quackery! Please explain it. I don't see how it's still the right move in your eyes, even when you admit the WMD reason is a bad one, the humanitarian reason is a bad one. Why is losing 1500 Americans' lives the right move 'regardless'.

 

[Batman]

And your reason #3 (it was the right move, regardless) Please explain it. I don't see how it's still the right move in your eyes

I don't think there is a reason I can give that will satisfy you. If you are willing to sit back and really look at it with an open mind - I would give it to you. But I don't think that is why you want my answer.

 

[anomaly]

I don't think there is a reason I can give that will satisfy you. If you are willing to sit back and really look at it with an open mind - I would give it to you. But I don't think that is why you want my answer.

This is the thrid time I've asked for it! Yes, I have an open mind, I have looked at the situation openly and made up my mind. But I've heard this from conservatives before. It is as if you on the right would have supported any offensive taken by Bush after 9/11. But perhaps you have a valid reason. We'll never know til you say what the reason was! Don't be afraid of me criticizing your reasoning, it is simply debate. But I am very interested in this kind of reasoning, which is why I want to know what that third reason is. So, again, why would you have supported the war 'regardless'?

 

[Batman]

Don't be afraid of me

Whew! I'm glad you said that.

My reason as to why this war was the “right thing” regardless, goes back to the first Gulf War.
The U.N. resolution in which we operated under was to remove Saddam from Kuwait. Not overthrow, not regime change - that became policy in 1998 - just get Saddam out of Kuwait. The “world” supported that - except John Kerry and some other democrats.

After we got Saddam to retreat, Colin Powell suggested we lighten up (remember the highway of death) so as not to appear blood thirsty and lose Arab allies. Now two things happened - the cease fire agreement was drafted. It stated, among other things, that Saddam could not fly aircraft in northern and southern Iraq. This was done in part to give the Kurds and other Iraqis a fighting chance to overthrow Saddam, something that George H.W. Bush not only encouraged, but said Iraqis would have the support of the U.S. if they rose up.

They did. Saddam immediately tested the no-fly zone by sending helicopters in to cut down the rebellion. The U.N. did not want to intervene - H.W. who pledged to support the uprising, followed the U.N. and let thousands get slaughtered. That was wrong. You do not pledge support, let people rise up thinking the U.S. will help, then leave them out to dry because the U.N. does not have the stomach for it.

I find it amazing that those who do not support the war now, are some who say we did not finish the job back then. The “job” according to the U.N. was finished - Saddam was removed from Kuwait. Had H.W. gone further, as he pledged to the Kurds, he would have done so WITHOUT U.N. backing. What would have been said then?

My brother served in the first Gulf War. He returned feeling “bad” that we as a country pledged support to those who had little weapons, but were armed with a desire to be free from a dictator, then left. Don’t get me wrong. He is very proud of the service he gave. But even now, suffering from “Gulf War Syndrome” having since been married and fathering two children, he wishes he could go back and make good on a “promise.”

All of that, is why, in my opinion, it was the right thing to do regardless of WMD’s or lack there of. Look at it as making good on a pledge to the people of Iraq. 12 years and 17 resolutions later.

 

[Pacridge]

Whew! I'm glad you said that.

My reason as to why this war was the “right thing” regardless, goes back to the first Gulf War.
The U.N. resolution in which we operated under was to remove Saddam from Kuwait. Not overthrow, not regime change - that became policy in 1998 - just get Saddam out of Kuwait. The “world” supported that - except John Kerry and some other democrats.

After we got Saddam to retreat, Colin Powell suggested we lighten up (remember the highway of death) so as not to appear blood thirsty and lose Arab allies. Now two things happened - the cease fire agreement was drafted. It stated, among other things, that Saddam could not fly aircraft in northern and southern Iraq. This was done in part to give the Kurds and other Iraqis a fighting chance to overthrow Saddam, something that George H.W. Bush not only encouraged, but said Iraqis would have the support of the U.S. if they rose up.

They did. Saddam immediately tested the no-fly zone by sending helicopters in to cut down the rebellion. The U.N. did not want to intervene - H.W. who pledged to support the uprising, followed the U.N. and let thousands get slaughtered. That was wrong. You do not pledge support, let people rise up thinking the U.S. will help, then leave them out to dry because the U.N. does not have the stomach for it.

I find it amazing that those who do not support the war now, are some who say we did not finish the job back then. The “job” according to the U.N. was finished - Saddam was removed from Kuwait. Had H.W. gone further, as he pledged to the Kurds, he would have done so WITHOUT U.N. backing. What would have been said then?

My brother served in the first Gulf War. He returned feeling “bad” that we as a country pledged support to those who had little weapons, but were armed with a desire to be free from a dictator, then left. Don’t get me wrong. He is very proud of the service he gave. But even now, suffering from “Gulf War Syndrome” having since been married and fathering two children, he wishes he could go back and make good on a “promise.”

All of that, is why, in my opinion, it was the right thing to do regardless of WMD’s or lack there of. Look at it as making good on a pledge to the people of Iraq. 12 years and 17 resolutions later.

That may be some of the more logical reason's for supporting this war I've heard.

I still don't like being sold on WMD's or spending billions of our tax dollars to make good on the "promise." But at least I see your side of it better now thanks.

 

[anomaly]

That may be some of the more logical reason's for supporting this war I've heard.

I still don't like being sold on WMD's or spending billions of our tax dollars to make good on the "promise." But at least I see your side of it better now thanks.

But, if that's your reason, do you really think protecting the no fly zone was worth the lives of 17,000 Iraqis and 1500 US soldiers? I, for one, do not. That is why I oppose this war.

 

[Batman]

But, if that's your reason, do you really think protecting the no fly zone was worth the lives of 17,000 Iraqis and 1500 US soldiers? I, for one, do not. That is why I oppose this war.

I said: Look at it as making good on a pledge to the people of Iraq.

That pledge was to support with force the uprising against Saddam.

Here's a question - would I say I support the war if I didn't think it was worth it?
It may be something new to you, but think before you ask a question like that.

 

[Thor]

I hate to come across cold about this but the fact is that it's water under the bridge. We went in, we are there, and we will be there for a while.
The Iraqi people are better off for it. They general population has hope, something they have never had. There will be alot more pain before the prize but there will be good end for them.

 

[Pacridge]

But, if that's your reason, do you really think protecting the no fly zone was worth the lives of 17,000 Iraqis and 1500 US soldiers? I, for one, do not. That is why I oppose this war.

I certainly think there are many more reasons to oppose the war than to support it. I just thought the reasons Batman gave made some sense to me as to why he supported it. I still don't think it was worth what it cost in terms of lives (on either side) or in other costs. The amount this war has cost the US tax payer is obscene. Of course right now no one's feeling that too much as it's all going on the ol' credit card. Some day, probably in the not too distant future, that's going to become an issue. We can't keep running up these huge debts and not feel it sooner or later. Borrow and spend just isn't a good economic policy.

I think there were far more logical ways to deal with the situation. I think the Duelfer Report clearly shows the sanctions were having positive affects and could have been worked with to become even stronger.

So no to answer your question- I don't think it was worth the loss of of life it ended up costing.

 

[Fantasea]

Kerry made some mistakes, as did many Democrats. But he did this based on false intelligence that Bush pressured out of the CIA. But, as regards to the UN and Iraq, are you aware that the UN passed several economic snctions leading to the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children? He didn't have enough to feed his country, how could the guy afford weapons? And a third world country building up an army capable of attacking the greatest army ever seen on earth-and only ten years after being humiliated in Kuwait? Selling to terrorists-no, Saddam ran a secular gov't and was considered evil by most terrorist groups (he was the lesser of two evils-the USA was number one). Even if Saddam did have weapons, he was no threat to the 'free' world at all, in any way, shape or form! You conservatives always complain about leftists criticizing Bush in any way; well, I'd say it's time for you on the right to admit that, given all we knew about Iraq in '03, invading Iraq was the wrong decision. Granted, now that we have seen a blunder the likes of which not seen since Vietnam, we must remain in Iraq until the job is done.

Have you ever heard of the UN Food for Oil Program? Iraq was permitted to sell oil which brought in billions of dollars. The problem was that instead of using the money for food, as required, Saddam Hussein used much of it to build palaces and purchase arms.

The investigation now under way will, no doubt, raise some eyebrows.

 

[26 X World Champs]

Yes, but he could afford to bribe UN inspectors, and he could afford to build palaces. lol
Source

LOL? Really? You think it's funny that Bush has sent 1700 Americans to their death and more than 100,000 Iraqis in the last two years? You've got a great sense of humor.

Bush and his AHOLE cronies concocted lie after lie to further their lust for money and oil, period. The NEOCON conspiracy dates back to 1996, as we all know. It is a matter of public record that Bush's boys wrote that they needed a "Pearl Harbor" type event to further their cause.

Bribing UN Inspectors? Must not have got a lot for his money since they destroyed all of his weapons. He should have taken his cues from Bush's Cabal, they're real professionals.

In case you some of you have amnesia?

http://zfacts.com/p/780.html

 

[Batman]

LOL? Really? You think it's funny that Bush has sent 1700 Americans to their death and more than 100,000 Iraqis in the last two years? You've got a great sense of humor.

You quoted Squawker as talking about Saddam building palaces - not sending troops to their death.

Bush and his AHOLE cronies concocted lie after lie to further their lust for money and oil, period.

Really? Is that the reason? I wish they would get the oil out of Iraq then - I'm tired of paying the AHOLE down the street $2.05 for a gallon of gas!

 

[Squawker]

LOL? Really? You think it's funny that Bush has sent 1700 Americans to their death and more than 100,000 Iraqis in the last two years? You've got a great sense of humor.

Bush and his AHOLE cronies concocted lie after lie to further their lust for money and oil, period. The NEOCON conspiracy dates back to 1996, as we all know. It is a matter of public record that Bush's boys wrote that they needed a "Pearl Harbor" type event to further their cause.

Bribing UN Inspectors? Must not have got a lot for his money since they destroyed all of his weapons. He should have taken his cues from Bush's Cabal, they're real professionals.

In case you some of you have amnesia?

Hey Champ, You are full of

 

[26 X World Champs]

You quoted Squawker as talking about Saddam building palaces - not sending troops to their death.

The point was that Sadaam was supposedly taking money to build palaces and my point is that Bush was using American troops to make money...in Iraq...so far its not worked out for Bush, has it?

Really? Is that the reason? I wish they would get the oil out of Iraq then - I'm tired of paying the AHOLE down the street $2.05 for a gallon of gas!

Ever stop to think that the reason that you're paying $2.05 per gallon is the war in Iraq?

Question? If you're tired of oil prices are you therefore PRO alternative sources of energy? Wouldn't that be the ultimate way to change the world?

 

[26 X World Champs]

Hey Champ, You are full of

A very well considered reply, congratulations. You're unable to dispute the Neocon conspiracy so instead you come up with this? :rofl

 

[Pacridge]

The point was that Sadaam was supposedly taking money to build palaces and my point is that Bush was using American troops to make money...in Iraq...so far its not worked out for Bush, has it?



Ever stop to think that the reason that you're paying $2.05 per gallon is the war in Iraq?

Question? If you're tired of oil prices are you therefore PRO alternative sources of energy? Wouldn't that be the ultimate way to change the world?

I missed it. How exactly is Bush using our troops to make money?