• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Question about Iraq..

Hornburger

Active member
Joined
Jun 2, 2005
Messages
452
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Sorry I'm going to ask a noob question lol.

But if Saddam had the power to make the weapons, and the materials, and the plans, just didn't start building them yet, why is everyone saying how Bush ****ed up in getting us there? Isn't a good thing that we caught him before he started? I mean, building the weapons is like the only choice he could take up with having those materials and plans and all...

So what I'm asking is why everyone thinks it is so wrong that we went into Iraq...
 
Hornburger said:
Isn't a good thing that we caught him before he started

Its the "before he started" part of your post that sticks a Mexican staring frog up my ***. Unless you support a pre-emptive policy on national security, which I dont, some Americans dont feel its right to invade a sovereign nation, let alone increase the US presence in the middle east before he has even done anything wrong. Ever hear of innocent until proven ANYTHING, speculation aside?

No matter how much of a piece of **** I consider Saddam to be, I'm starting to think more and more that he held that country together for a reason, and there isn’t an American politician ambitious enough in this country to stop a Mesopotamian conflict so many centuries old.
 
I think that as it was unecessary, did not further American interests, and has injured America's interests and decreased her safety, it would have been better to skip it. YMMV.
 
sticking directly to the WMD question:

there is no evidence that the continuation of any WMD research program was planned for anytime soon by saddam

there is always increasing evidence that he had destroyed all of the country's WMDs and was not in an active process of rearming with wmds

many very oppressive countries that are often hostile to other countries have WMDs, so the US has no right to decide who gets to have them. is the US trying to disarm of WMDs other such countries: pakistan, israel, russia, the usa itself

even if the was might have been just (which i am of the perspective that there is not such way), there is no excuse for the slaughter and impoverishment of hundreds of thousands of iraqis

the usa clearly doesnt care about WMDs at all, and the issue was a red herring. take for example, the usa and panama. when the usa pulled its troops out of my homeland n 2000, it illegally (against the treaty it negotiated in the 1970s) refused to clean up unexploded ordinances and other weaponry that it left throughout the country on former bases. among the ordinances lying around all over panama is a large amount of chemical WMDs. the border between panama and colombia doesnt exist, there is no border patrol, panama has no military, and guerrillas, rightist paramilitaries and narco-traffickers cross it without fear. what does all this mean? anyone with enough conventional arms to traverse the colombian/panamanian border could stock up on some chemical wmds, take it back to northern colombia where there is no government presence, and smuggle it anywhere in the world.

nuff said
 
bayano said:
sticking directly to the WMD question:

there is no evidence that the continuation of any WMD research program was planned for anytime soon by saddam

there is always increasing evidence that he had destroyed all of the country's WMDs and was not in an active process of rearming with wmds

Here's a letter to the editor I wrote a while back to my local newspaper in response to another letter. I think it fits here as well.

As Zac Haughn has accused the Courier of getting their facts wrong, so has he. The “homemade” bomb was nothing of the sort. It was a 155-millimeter artillery round which had been rigged as an IED. The round was a binary type which needs the spinning action of being fired from an artillery piece to mix the chemicals inside to create Sarin. The fact that it was rigged, most likely by insurgents, as an IED is what kept the exposure level to a minimum. I too read the AP reports to which Mr. Haughn has referred. I have also read many others, including ones buried in several newspapers.

Here are a few things I came across:

David Kay said the trace residue of mustard gas found in an artillery shell earlier this month was likely a relic overlooked when Saddam said he had destroyed such weapons in the mid-90s.

Hans Blix said his team found 16 warheads that were tagged a “used for containing Sarin,” but were empty.

Saddam’s government had disclosed binary Sarin testing & production after the defection of Iraqi weapons chief Lt. Gen. Hussein Kamel al-Majid, Saddam’s son-in-law. But Saddam’s government never declared that any Sarin or Sarin-filled shells still remained.

A dozen chemical shells were also found by U. N. inspectors before the war; they had been tagged for destruction in the 90s but somehow were not destroyed.

Iraq acknowledged making 3,859 tons of Sarin, Tabun, mustard gas & other chemical weapons. Iraq began producing Sarin in 1984 & admitted to possessing 790 tons of it in 1995.

The mustard gas shell may be one of 550 projectiles Saddam failed to account for when he made his weapons declaration shortly before Operation Iraqi Freedom began last year. Iraq also failed to account for 450 aerial bombs with mustard gas.

Kimmitt said the shell belonged to a class of ordnance that Saddam’s government said was destroyed before the 1991 Gulf War.

The big question: Can anyone seriously deny Saddam was in breach of U.N. resolutions concerning his WMDs?
 
Arthur Fonzarelli said:
The big question: Can anyone seriously deny Saddam was in breach of U.N. resolutions concerning his WMDs?

No.

Well, not honestly, anyway. Honesty isnt a big thing with the anti-Bush crowd.

In any event - the bigger question is - how many times do you have to see "said was destroyed" or "Iraq also failed to account for" or "Saddam failed to account for" or "but somehow were not destroyed" or "Saddam’s government never declared" or "overlooked when Saddam said he had destroyed such weapons" before you at least suspect that Iraq had not come clean and had no intention of coming clean.

A police officer asks you if you have any weapons in the car. You say no. He finds an M16 that you are very definitely not supposed to have. You respond "I forgot about that". What happens?
 
Originally posted by Goobieman:
Well, not honestly, anyway. Honesty isnt a big thing with the anti-Bush crowd.

In any event - the bigger question is - how many times do you have to see "said was destroyed" or "Iraq also failed to account for" or "Saddam failed to account for" or "but somehow were not destroyed" or "Saddam’s government never declared" or "overlooked when Saddam said he had destroyed such weapons" before you at least suspect that Iraq had not come clean and had no intention of coming clean.

A police officer asks you if you have any weapons in the car. You say no. He finds an M16 that you are very definitely not supposed to have. You respond "I forgot about that". What happens?
That's a bad analogy. Because the cops have never found the M16 in the Iraqis trunk.
 
Originally Posted by Arthur Fonzarelli
The big question: Can anyone seriously deny Saddam was in breach of U.N. resolutions concerning his WMDs?
Absolutely! Because the very men that were sent to determine this were unable to finish their mission. They had to get out of the country because Bush would not "guarantee their safety".

It should be noted that, since the attack, not only have we found any, but the Bush Administration has publically admitted that it has stopped looking for them.
 
You mean that after more than a decade, and a dozen resolutions, the men sent there to look for weapons finally had to leave before a war started????

That sucks. You would think we would have allowed them enough time to do their job properly......

like say, at least 11 years and 15 resolutions.

how dare we rush them like that!!!!!!!!!
 
ProudAmerican said:
You mean that after more than a decade, and a dozen resolutions, the men sent there to look for weapons finally had to leave before a war started????

That sucks. You would think we would have allowed them enough time to do their job properly......

like say, at least 11 years and 15 resolutions.

how dare we rush them like that!!!!!!!!!


Yes. If 12 years and 17 resolutions is a "rush" to war...
 
Originally posted by BodiSatva:
The Bush Doctrine essentially negates U.N. Article 51

Shock and Awe
I didn't see any reference to Article 51 in the link. But I did see a lot of comparisons to the Nazi's.
 
Originally Posted by ProudAmerican
You mean that after more than a decade, and a dozen resolutions, the men sent there to look for weapons finally had to leave before a war started????

That sucks. You would think we would have allowed them enough time to do their job properly......

like say, at least 11 years and 15 resolutions.

how dare we rush them like that!!!!!!!!!
Originally Posted by Goobieman
Yes. If 12 years and 17 resolutions is a "rush" to war...
The arrogance of some Americans, thinking we can call the shots in this world above all other nations in spite of the climate and opinion of the international community, is definately the worst of our society.
 
It is interesting to note that one of the main reasons people use to argue the invasion of Iraq was legal, was UNSC Resolution 1441. It is even more interesting to note that in our own Resolution H.R. 114, in which Congress stated the reasons for authorization to the executive branch to use military action, and which they listed in 114 all the pertanant UN Resolutions, 1441 was NOT included in the document.
 
Billo_Really said:
The arrogance of some Americans, thinking we can call the shots in this world above all other nations in spite of the climate and opinion of the international community, is definately the worst of our society.

Please tell us about the "arrogance" of the Iraqi government, calling its own shots and defying the opinion of the international Communty for 12 years and over 17 resolutions.

Oh wait - that's different.
 
Billo_Really said:
It is interesting to note that one of the main reasons people use to argue the invasion of Iraq was legal, was UNSC Resolution 1441. It is even more interesting to note that in our own Resolution H.R. 114, in which Congress stated the reasons for authorization to the executive branch to use military action, and which they listed in 114 all the pertanant UN Resolutions, 1441 was NOT included in the document.

Lesse....
HR114 became law 10-16-02
UNSCR1441 was passed 11-8-02

Lame, Billo. Really.
Normally I expect inanity fom you - but outright fraud?

Let's move on:

Section (2) 1:
(1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and

Section (3) 2:
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

Please explain how UNSCR1441 is not relevant to the issue.
 
Last edited:
Billo_Really said:
The arrogance of some Americans, thinking we can call the shots in this world above all other nations in spite of the climate and opinion of the international community, is definately the worst of our society.


I think the "climate and opinion" of the international community was clear from the very time period and resolutions we are discussing.
It should also be noted that for over a decade, the U.N. was allowed to "call the shots"
they were innefective, so we decided it was time to act.

It is the arrogance of the country that ignored them that concerns most clear thinking people.

It is those that would blame America for that arrogance, rather than blame the country that was the actual problem that are definately the worst of our society.
 
Goobieman said:
Please tell us about the "arrogance" of the Iraqi government, calling its own shots and defying the opinion of the international Communty for 12 years and over 17 resolutions.

Oh wait - that's different.


I am starting to understand this now.

12 Years and 17+ Resolutions is the amount need to justify the termination of people, including citizens?
12 Years and 17+ Resolutions must also be the exact number to ignore all existence of Sudan's Genocide, and go for the Enemy of our Enemy (Iran is the enemy of our enemy who's supposed to be our friend, but we all know what happened in that little story).

I love it, Death now has a tolerance level, maybe we should show him a good time.
 
12 Years and 17+ Resolutions is the amount need to justify the termination of people, including citizens?

using that logic, war is never justified, EVER. and that is simply not realistic.

12 Years and 17+ Resolutions must also be the exact number to ignore all existence of Sudan's Genocide, and go for the Enemy of our Enemy

so in your first statement, you claim war is never the answer. (the only logical conclusion one can reach if you never want to see innocent civilians die) and in your second statement, you claim war is the answer.

which is it?

tell us, if 12 years and 17 resolutions isnt enough, what is enough?

what would have been your number? 15 and 20......or how about 19 and 23......??

if your neighbor punched your kid in the face, and you called the cops.....andy they did nothing. and you called them over a dozen times, and each time they never did anything......when would you decide to do something? would your kid have to be socked in the face 12 times? or how about 19 times? maybe 32 times?

I think we gave more than enough time, and I also think the claims that this was a rush to war are complete nonsense.
 
War should certainly have a clear justification. And it should be presented honestly and accurately. Iraq had no such justification and only served to make matters worse by destablizing the ME. It was reckless and all we can hope for now is that wiser heads will help find something not as bad as it is heading toward now.
 
Arch Enemy said:
I am starting to understand this now.
12 Years and 17+ Resolutions is the amount need to justify the termination of people, including citizens?

Tell me:
Where do you draw the line?
How do you maintain credibility when all you do is pass resolutions that you dont enforce?
 
Originally posted by Goobieman:
Tell me:
Where do you draw the line?
How do you maintain credibility when all you do is pass resolutions that you dont enforce?
Why don't you tell me why their infant mortality rate went up by 50% in that span if resolutions were not being enforced?
 
Billo_Really said:
Why don't you tell me why their infant mortality rate went up by 50% in that span if resolutions were not being enforced?

because a brutal regime was living it up while their people starved.
 
And the people of Iraq are not a lot better off today. As I said:

War should certainly have a clear justification. And it should be presented honestly and accurately. Iraq had no such justification and only served to make matters worse by destablizing the ME. It was reckless and all we can hope for now is that wiser heads will help find something not as bad as it is heading toward now.

As bad as Saddam was, as ineffective as sanctions were (except at preventing wmds), there was no justification for this war and the people have had suffering dumped on top of suffering because of our recklessness.
 
Billo_Really said:
Why don't you tell me why their infant mortality rate went up by 50% in that span if resolutions were not being enforced?

I see you dropped that "HR114 doesnt mention UNSCR1441" thing pretty quick.

:rofl
 
Back
Top Bottom