Why do you Liberals TRUELY believe... (1 Viewer)

[AK_Conservative]

... that you are againts this war? Please, all of you that post within this forum, use true arguements (meaning from a logical sense and not hearsay, anti-republican rhetoric). withing your explanation! Also, I would also like to see the reason behind the people who do actually support the war!

Here is my explanation on why I still support the war!

We first went into iraq with the U.N. Saddam denied access to the investigators in many locations! what does that suggest to US intelligence? Clinton stated that Iraq did have WMD's (sorry to use propaganda words) and MUST get rid of them. Secondly, IT HAS BEEN CLEARLY STATED, there are terrorists camps in Iraq! Saddam clearly stated that he would pay an amount, equivalent to U.S. dollars, $10,000 to anyone's family where a member of the proceeding family killed any US or Israeli men! (if that is not terrorism, i dont know what is! ) One of my last points i shall include (though there is more) that democracy in the iraq is ONE step closer to FUTURE peace!

Now dont get my logic wrong here. I know the war is not flowing as well as it could. Though, this is a new enemy with not as much understand as we have had in the past, though our knowledge on the subject is growing and we are continueing to improve, whether you want to believe that or not!

Those who compare this to vietnam, in my honest opinion, are mistaken. We have already overthrown the regime and are currently structuring the new democracy in Iraq, unlike vietnam, where 60,000 U.S. forces were killed, unlike iraq, though one death of an american soldier is a sad thing!

I truely believe we are after the greater good!

 

[Occam's Butter Knife]

What amazes me is that after 12 years of the world watching Saddam defy U.N. resolutions is that anyone can say that Saddam had suddenly become cooperative. He always became cooperative when threatened and always thumbed his nose at the world when the pressure was let off.

Saddam was biding his time and bribing as many members of the U.N. as he could to buy his way into sanctions being lifted. In the meantime the people of Iraq were paying a heavy price for Saddam's defiance.

I think that the war could have been justified without the hype over WMD. I also think that there was no way that the U.N. was ever going to put their stamp of approval on the Iraq war, with so many members having a vested interest in the oil-for-food scandal. I feel that this negates the validity of the U.N. towards the so-called "illegality" of removing Saddam's regime.

Where I think we really blew it was that we should have gone all the way to Baghdad in the first Gulf War.

Who said this?

Let me be clear on what the U.S. objectives are: The United States wants Iraq to rejoin the family of nations as a freedom-loving and law-abiding member. This is in our interest and that of our allies within the region.

The United States favors an Iraq that offers its people freedom at home. I categorically reject arguments that this is unattainable due to Iraq's history or its ethnic or sectarian make-up. Iraqis deserve and desire freedom like everyone else. The United States looks forward to a democratically supported regime that would permit us to enter into a dialogue leading to the reintegration of Iraq into normal international life.

Answer

 

[AK_Conservative]

very nice contribution. It is very good to hear some logical contribution!:cheers:

 

[GarzaUK]

We first went into iraq with the U.N. Saddam denied access to the investigators in many locations! what does that suggest to US intelligence?

That suggested US intelligence ASSUMED he had WMD's. Are assumptions a basis for waging war nowadays?
The intelligence used was in fact 12 years old, when the first gulf war ended. I would have thought that they would have used more up-to-date intelligence when about to send young Americans to war.

Clinton stated that Iraq did have WMD's (sorry to use propaganda words) and MUST get rid of them. Secondly, IT HAS BEEN CLEARLY STATED, there are terrorists camps in Iraq!

Who said it? When? And a source, please?

Saddam clearly stated that he would pay an amount, equivalent to U.S. dollars, $10,000 to anyone's family where a member of the proceeding family killed any US or Israeli men! (if that is not terrorism, i dont know what is! )

Saddam was a bad man, shocker. :roll: There are lots of bad men in the world, the US going to get rid of them all?

One of my last points i shall include (though there is more) that democracy in the iraq is ONE step closer to FUTURE peace!

Yeah Iraq is a good place nowadays. In fact I'm moving there, packing my bags, with the wind in my face and a pocketful of dreams.
You forget that the Sunnis will most likely reject the constitution.

Now dont get my logic wrong here. I know the war is not flowing as well as it could. Though, this is a new enemy with not as much understand as we have had in the past, though our knowledge on the subject is growing and we are continueing to improve, whether you want to believe that or not!

1. Iraq War has spread terrorism and in fact boosted it.
2. The terrorists are now experienced against US troops. And our now smarter, more flexable. They know how to fight us, they know how to kill us.
3. Bush and Rumsfeld underestimated the enemy. Know Thy Enemy.
4. The Iraqi people are starting to turn against us. eg. Basra, a few days ago.

Improving? How? Wasn't last month the third bloodiest since the war began?

Those who compare this to vietnam, in my honest opinion, are mistaken. We have already overthrown the regime and are currently structuring the new democracy in Iraq, unlike vietnam, where 60,000 U.S. forces were killed, unlike iraq, though one death of an american soldier is a sad thing!

There are a few parallels between the wars, but of course they are identical. The regime? That was always going to be the easy part, as they fight conventional. The insurgents fight unconvential warfare, guerilla warfare, like in Vietnam - the US forces can't deal with it.
Ask yourself if Iraq was covered with the jungles of Vietnam, how much would the death toll increase?

 

[gdalton]

(Garza: “The intelligence used was in fact 12 years old, when the first gulf war ended. I would have thought that they would have used more up-to-date intelligence when about to send young Americans to war.”)

CNN posted an article on their web site back in 2002 which had this to say, "Iraq continues to possess several tons of chemical weapons agents, enough to kill thousands and thousands of civilians or soldiers," said Jon Wolfsthal, an analyst with the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. U.N. weapons experts have said Iraq may have stockpiled more than 600 metric tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, VX and saran. Some 25,000 rockets and 15,000 artillery shells with chemical agents are also unaccounted for, the experts said.”

Now that wasn’t 12 years old.
But wait there’s more.

9/11 Commission Report: “In 2001, with Bin Ladin’s help they re-formed into an organization called Ansar al Islam. There are indications that by then the Iraqi regime tolerated and may even have helped Ansar al Islam against the common Kurdish enemy.”
“In March 1998,after Bin Ladin’s public fatwa against the United States, two al Qaeda members reportedly went to Iraq to meet with Iraqi intelligence. In July, an Iraqi delegation traveled to Afghanistan to meet first with the Taliban and then with Bin Ladin. Sources reported that one, or perhaps both, of these meetings was apparently arranged through Bin Ladin’s Egyptian deputy, Zawahiri, who had ties of his own to the Iraqis.” The report goes on to say that in 1999 Al Qaeda’s relationship with the Taliban in Afghanistan was beginning to become strained so more meetings were set up and “Iraqi officials offered Bin Ladin a safe haven in Iraq” which Bin Laden denied because he felt his position in Afghanistan was more favorable.

(Garza: “Who said it? When? And a source, please?”)

The following is a quote from President Clinton made in an address to the joint chiefs of staff and pentagon staff in 1998. He was explaining how the “terrorists, drug traffickers and organized international criminals” were a genuine threat to America and he goes on to say “There is no more clear example of this threat than Saddam Hussein's Iraq. His regime threatens the safety of his people, the stability of his region and the security of all the rest of us.”


I have more if you would like to see them.

 

[Billo_Really]

If you freely choose to belong to an organization, then you also agree to follow that organizations' rules. The US is a "member" state of the United Nations and thereby obligated to follow its rules (resolutions, charter, etc). Article 51 of the UN Charter allows only two ways a country can legally attack another country. We didn't have either one.

But we did try to get UN approvel several times and when that failed, we start trashing them with stories like OFF. Although the scandel was definately wrong, as a permenant member of the Security Councel, we knew what was going on for at least four years and chose to look the other way. In spite of the fact that a majority of the money used was ours.

We knew all about Hussein 20 years ago. And we waited until now to do something? I mention this not as an endorsment of the war, but to show that this arguement about him being a bad guy so we had to attack is bullshit. But he was definately a bad guy. No doubt about that. But we didn't have to attack.

When you look at this in light of DSM, we were going to attack all along.

Send a message to the rest of the world that Americans do care. Impeach Bush.

 

[shakenbake19]

hmmm......

That North Korea guy isn't nearly as dangerous as Saddam, is he? We never thought the war would go this way. Period. End of story. But we can't pull out now, if we do, then we leave iraq doomed. The democracy will collapse to insurgents and we would have fixed nothing.

 

[AK_Conservative]

Link 1

Link 2

Here are Two links i want you guys to look at.. Do you believe this disproves any of your arguements? If not.. explain!

Who said it? When? And a source, please?

Dont you watch the news? Dont you remember anything from the clinton administration?

Yeah Iraq is a good place nowadays. In fact I'm moving there, packing my bags, with the wind in my face and a pocketful of dreams.
You forget that the Sunnis will most likely reject the constitution.

:roll: you misinterpreted that statement! you Over analyzed it beyond capacity! What does ONE STEP mean to you? Rethink that statement you read!

Saddam was a bad man, shocker. There are lots of bad men in the world, the US going to get rid of them all?

I guess you proved my point by connection terrorism to Saddam! Thanks! Read one of the links above for more!

That suggested US intelligence ASSUMED he had WMD's. Are assumptions a basis for waging war nowadays?
The intelligence used was in fact 12 years old, when the first gulf war ended. I would have thought that they would have used more up-to-date intelligence when about to send young Americans to war.

Like stated earlier, that evidence was not 12 years old! Update your facts! Second of all, take this in mind THUROUGHLY. WHAT IF, we had waited for the U.N. to give US the go ahead and invade (which they would have never of done, no matter the circumstance to begin with) but we got striked, or another country, i.e. israel, before we got the go ahead from the ulmighty U.N.? Would you have blammed Bush for the attack becuase he did not invade. I would guarentee you would!

Thirdly, What do you think of Clinton's invasion of Iraq? Did you support it? What if clinton handled Iraq the same way Bush is doing? Would you support it! I believe you would. Keep in mind i said BELIEVE, which entales no fact behind it, but logical evidence!

 

[Occam's Butter Knife]

If you freely choose to belong to an organization, then you also agree to follow that organizations' rules. The US is a "member" state of the United Nations and thereby obligated to follow its rules (resolutions, charter, etc). Article 51 of the UN Charter allows only two ways a country can legally attack another country. We didn't have either one.

Article 51 does not state the conditions permissable for war, it merely says that any state has a right to defend itself.
"Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security. "

But we did try to get UN approvel several times and when that failed, we start trashing them with stories like OFF. Although the scandel was definately wrong, as a permenant member of the Security Councel, we knew what was going on for at least four years and chose to look the other way. In spite of the fact that a majority of the money used was ours.

Yes, the U.S. went ahead with the war without the blessing of the Security Council and with only 36 other members of the U.N.. It was a "coalition of the willing". Coalition of the willing is a phrase coined by former President Clinton to justify his use of force in Kosovo without full Security Council approval. NATO did not have the backing of the United Nations to use force in Yugoslavia but justified its actions on the basis of an "international humanitarian emergency". hmmm... don't those folks at Wikipedia know that a period comes before a quotation mark at the end of a sentence? - oh, well OT...

We knew all about Hussein 20 years ago. And we waited until now to do something? I mention this not as an endorsment of the war, but to show that this arguement about him being a bad guy so we had to attack is bullshit. But he was definately a bad guy. No doubt about that. But we didn't have to attack.

No. We could have let him continue to torture, murder and rape and it would have been less expensive in dollars and soldiers lives.

In 2002, a resolution sponsored by the European Union was adopted by the Commission for Human Rights, which stated that there had been no improvement in the human rights crisis in Iraq. The statement condemned President Saddam Hussein's government for its "systematic, widespread and extremely grave violations of human rights and international humanitarian law". The resolution demanded that Iraq immediately put an end to its "summary and arbitrary executions... the use of rape as a political tool and all enforced and involuntary disappearances".

Documented human rights violations 1979-2003
Saddam was supporting terrorism, but none that directly affected the U.S. Maybe we were a bit hasty... :roll:

When you look at this in light of DSM, we were going to attack all along.

We should have gone all the way to Baghdad in the first Gulf War. One of two wars ever sanctioned by the U.N. Security Council. And we didn't do that because...?

A peace conference was held in Iraqi territory occupied by the coalition. At the conference, Iraq won the approval of the use of armed helicopters on their side of the temporary border, ostensibly for government transit due to the damage done to civilian transportation. Soon after, these helicopters — and much of the Iraqi armed forces — were refocused toward fighting against a Shiite uprising in the south. In the North, Kurdish leaders took heart in American statements that they would support an uprising and began fighting, in the hopes of triggering a coup. However, when no American support was forthcoming, Iraqi generals remained loyal and brutally crushed the Kurdish troops.

Gulf War

Send a message to the rest of the world that Americans do care. Impeach Bush.

Impeaching Bush wouldn't prove that Americans care about anything except welfare increases. It is a moot point anyway, since it won't happen.

 

[AK_Conservative]

Send a message to the rest of the world that Americans do care. Impeach Bush.

Apparently, Billo here does not know what an impeachment is nor knows the reasons for an impeachment to stir up! Has the president done ANYTHING illegal.. NO! therefore can he be eligible for impeachment? Absolutely not! Now, if he was impeached, he would still be in office, he would ahve to be convicted! This again is impossible b/c there is absolutely no true facts that support any so called criminal behaviors he puts on!

Stop trying to further the Liberal political agenda Billo_Really, and start looking at the facts of life, not the rhetoric you want to believe!

 

[Occam's Butter Knife]

Saddam’s Terror Ties
Iraq-war critics ignore ample evidence.

Coalition forces have found alive and well key terrorists who enjoyed Hussein's hospitality. Among them was Abu Abbas, mastermind of the October 1985 Achille Lauro hijacking and murder of Leon Klinghoffer, a 69-year-old Manhattan retiree who Abbas's men rolled, wheelchair and all, into the Mediterranean. Khala Khadr al-Salahat, accused of designing the bomb that destroyed Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland in December 1988 (259 killed on board, 11 dead on the ground), also lived in Baathist Iraq.

Before fatally shooting himself four times in the head on August 16, 2002, as Baghdad claimed, Palestinian terrorist Abu Nidal had resided in Iraq since 1999. As the AP's Sameer N. Yacoub reported on August 21, 2002, the Beirut office of the Abu Nidal Organization said he entered Iraq "with the full knowledge and preparations of the Iraqi authorities." Nidal's attacks in 20 countries killed at least 275 people and wounded some 625 others. Among other atrocities, ANO henchmen bombed a TWA airliner over the Aegean Sea in 1974, killing all 88 people on board.

Tell me again how there were no terrorists in Iraq before the war?

 

[AK_Conservative]

Hmmm not too many have stepped up to the plate.. .what liek 1 or 2 in this thread? The democratic party must not have a strong defense against the war in iraq! :rofl

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally Posted by AK_Conservative:
Apparently, Billo here does not know what an impeachment is nor knows the reasons for an impeachment to stir up! Has the president done ANYTHING illegal.. NO! therefore can he be eligible for impeachment? Absolutely not! Now, if he was impeached, he would still be in office, he would ahve to be convicted! This again is impossible b/c there is absolutely no true facts that support any so called criminal behaviors he puts on!

Stop trying to further the Liberal political agenda Billo_Really, and start looking at the facts of life, not the rhetoric you want to believe!

OK AK, if you would just google Lieutenant-General Moseley's statements on Iraq you will find that Bush started the war months before receiving authorization from Congress. Which is a crime and an impeachable offense.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by Occam's Butter Knife:
Article 51 does not state the conditions permissable for war, it merely says that any state has a right to defend itself.

The "...right to defend itself" are "...the conditions permissable for war".

 

[AK_Conservative]

OK AK, if you would just google Lieutenant-General Moseley's statements on Iraq you will find that Bush started the war months before receiving authorization from Congress. Which is a crime and an impeachable offense.

From what I was able to find on this matter, there was not much to it! The way i read this article was that preperation for a war was planning before Bush sent in the UN, which in my honest opinion is a smart thing to do! Do correct me if i am wrong: Everyone speculated from evidance that saddam would not be fully cooperative! We had to be fully prepared to our extent of knowledge of every circumstance that could have durived from this, including war. You can not go in blind folded.. correct? Preperation is a necessity! Now it refers to the DSM. :roll: I read this when it first came out and it had no substantial evidance within it! therefore, i never took it as being true! Democrats and republicans alike have both thought the same thing, but then there were those few radical liberals in congress who did! Go figure!

Though this is one man's opinion, take it as you wish!

 

[MrFungus420]

OK AK, if you would just google Lieutenant-General Moseley's statements on Iraq you will find that Bush started the war months before receiving authorization from Congress. Which is a crime and an impeachable offense.

Started it, or started planning it? Two very different propositions.

 

[AK_Conservative]

Started it, or started planning it? Two very different propositions.

Which is exactly what did not happen! (started it). Extensive preperation is needed for a war! No evidence is present that supposts the conclusion that bush STARTED the war for personal, oil, or whatever sort of gain you may think of!

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally Posted by AK_Conservative:
From what I was able to find on this matter, there was not much to it! The way i read this article was that preperation for a war was planning before Bush sent in the UN, which in my honest opinion is a smart thing to do! Do correct me if i am wrong: Everyone speculated from evidance that saddam would not be fully cooperative! We had to be fully prepared to our extent of knowledge of every circumstance that could have durived from this, including war. You can not go in blind folded.. correct? Preperation is a necessity! Now it refers to the DSM. I read this when it first came out and it had no substantial evidance within it! therefore, i never took it as being true! Democrats and republicans alike have both thought the same thing, but then there were those few radical liberals in congress who did! Go figure!

Though this is one man's opinion, take it as you wish!

It wasn't just "one man's opinion", it was the man who's job it was to order the sorties. He was the one in charge of the air wing. If he didn't know what he was talking about, then no one does.

General admits to secret air war
Michael Smith

THE American general who commanded allied air forces during the Iraq war appears to have admitted in a briefing to American and British officers that coalition aircraft waged a secret air war against Iraq from the middle of 2002, nine months before the invasion began.
Addressing a briefing on lessons learnt from the Iraq war Lieutenant-General Michael Moseley said that in 2002 and early 2003 allied aircraft flew 21,736 sorties, dropping more than 600 bombs on 391 “carefully selected targets” before the war officially started.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1669640,00.html

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally Posted by MrFungus420:
Started it, or started planning it? Two very different propositions.

Your argueing semantics. This...

21,736 sorties, dropping more than 600 bombs on 391 “carefully selected targets”

...would not have happened if they didn't have the OK from Washington.

 

[Occam's Butter Knife]

The "...right to defend itself" are "...the conditions permissable for war".

No. Article 51 only limits the power of the Security Council.

Articles 39 and 42 of the U.N. Charter permit the Security Council to "determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression" and to authorize the use of force "to maintain or restore international peace and security." These are the articles that authorize the use of force.

 

[MrFungus420]

Your argueing semantics.

Not really. If they were drawing up plans for combat operations it is a far cry from starting those operations.

This......would not have happened if they didn't have the OK from Washington.

The article also pointed out: "If those raids exceeded the need to maintain security in the no-fly zones of southern and northern Iraq,"

I'm not making a claim one way or the other. But, based on the article, it's not a sure thing.

 

[shakenbake19]

Send a message to the rest of the world that Americans do care. Impeach Bush.

and then we get Dick Cheney as president. Is that what you want?

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by shakenbake19:
and then we get Dick Cheney as president. Is that what you want?

That's the best arguement for not impeaching Bush. I shiver just thinking about it. I kinda hoped we could impeach them both at the same time. But your right, Chaney's no prize.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally Posted by MrFungus420:
The article also pointed out: "If those raids exceeded the need to maintain security in the no-fly zones of southern and northern Iraq,"

I'm not making a claim one way or the other. But, based on the article, it's not a sure thing.

You don't consider the amount of ordinance that was used went a little beyond "no-fly" enforcement?

 

[AK_Conservative]

That's the best arguement for not impeaching Bush. I shiver just thinking about it. I kinda hoped we could impeach them both at the same time. But your right, Chaney's no prize.

AHAHAHAHAHA! Now what has cheney done illegal! You are providing personal opinion that you do not like either of them based on political ideology! Now, you want to impeach both becuase you dont agree with them?! :rofl