• 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.

Would the cowards be more cowardly?

Would the Nancy Pelosi adminstration ...

  • Demand victory in Iraq

    Votes: 2 16.7%
  • Bring the troops home and build a wall around America

    Votes: 10 83.3%

  • Total voters
    12

Topsez

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 14, 2006
Messages
1,131
Reaction score
38
Location
Near the equater
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
There is talk that the Democratic led congress may introduce a vote of confidence on President Bush’s plan for troop reinforcement for the Iraq conflict. Should this happen and a bipartisan majority support failure in Iraq by voting for the resolution what would President Nancy Pelosi’s administration do to solve the conflict in Iraq when President Bush and Vice President Cheney resigned?

Logically Bush and Cheney would resign considering the nation supports defeat so how would Nancy and company deal with the mess? What is the Democratic plan for peace in the Mid East?

Please explain how a Nancy Pelosi administration would handle Iraq and Iran.
 
Umm why would Bush and Cheney resign over a vote of no confidence? America isn't a parliamentary system, and a vote of no confidence would be purely symbolic.
 
I didn't reply to the poll because the choices are unfair and obviously biased, along with the question. I also don't understand why Bush and Cheney would resign after this vote of no confidence which, like Kandahar said, would be purely symbolic, can you explain why they would?
 
Topsez has a rather peculiar idea as to how American as in USA Democracy works.
President AND Vice President resign? A ridiculous idea, as the 2 posters preceeding me have also said, WHY would they resign?

I very much doubt that the democrats have thought out anything with regard to how the US could extricate itself from Iraq.

Democrats are very wise when leading up to an election, funny how their wisdom dissipates once they have their respective butts on their newly won seats.
 
Demand victory in Iraq? like that is all that needs to happen
 
Topsez you make the silliest threads.
The reason I posted the thread was primarily to seek ideas of how the left sees possible ways for Iraq to conclude with less than catastrophe.

If I put myself in the position of the Prez and VP and congress voted overwhelmingly not to support victory after authorizing a conflict along with the American people showing lack of resolve to overwhelmingly win... I would think I sent the warriors into battle and thousands died when the congress and the nation did not support their mission. I would order them, the armed forces to leave everything that is nailed down and to take everything that isn't to Kuwait... don't look in the rear view mirror and then order the stuff be loaded on the first thing smoking heading West. I would announce not one more life would be sacrificed for a chosen loosing cause... then I would give the cowardly nation the cowardly leadership they seem to desire to do as they will.
 
Last edited:
You mean Pelosi would bring troops home and open our borders even more. She doesn't want border control......neither parties to, but the Democrats surely don't want stricter border control or a wall.
 
The reason I posted the thread was primarily to seek ideas of how the left sees possible ways for Iraq to conclude with less than catastrophe.

Your primary goal for the thread was lost in all of your hypothetical partisan ramblings.

I side with the democrats on this one simply because I think the minor troop increase that Bush made is nothing that will make a significant impact. Bush has no problem talking about the will of the people and the righteousness of this war but when it comes down to it he is very conservative in the war effort. If you are going to fight a war then you need to fight the war by adding in more then enough troops to get the job done. You do not add a little bit at a time hoping that you'll reach that magic number sooner or later.

Bush's "war on terror" is no thing more then a glorified police action.
 
It's hardly cowardly to stop fighting when you realize that you shouldn't have started the fight to begin with.
 
You mean Pelosi would bring troops home and open our borders even more. She doesn't want border control......neither parties to, but the Democrats surely don't want stricter border control or a wall.
My implication in the poll question was that the Democratic Party seems to prefer an isolation policy verses a realistic foreign policy.

Your primary goal for the thread was lost in all of your hypothetical partisan ramblings.
I wanted someone on the left to say the left want victory too.

I side with the democrats on this one simply because I think the minor troop increase that Bush made is nothing that will make a significant impact. Bush has no problem talking about the will of the people and the righteousness of this war but when it comes down to it he is very conservative in the war effort. If you are going to fight a war then you need to fight the war by adding in more then enough troops to get the job done. You do not add a little bit at a time hoping that you'll reach that magic number sooner or later.
I thought the same thing but understand that the rules of engagement have been changed allowing local area commanders authority they formerly didn't have, that in itself is a force multiplier. I think the war should have been overwhelming force from day one and should be fought that way now. Indications of getting tough with Iran and Syria ... and hopefully Saudi Arabia will allow a posibility for progress and stabalization.

The problem is every tone from the left and now some on the right is that we need to use timetables, staggered withdraw and similar means of failure... Soldiers continue to die under such programs that are not employed with a goal of victory or success. I personally, would prefer to do what I said above and remove all forces as speedily as possible if victory wasn't the goal... How could a commander in chief visit the parents of fallen soldiers knowing they died for nothing?

Bush's "war on terror" is no thing more then a glorified police action.
I dissagree. The left and the mainstream media balances the cost of the war with what that same money could buy for Americans. Such selfish balance while troops are in danger at the directions of Congress is repulsive.


It's hardly cowardly to stop fighting when you realize that you shouldn't have started the fight to begin with.
The restart of hostilities was based on best assessments available. The dictator Saddam could have met his ceasefire conditions in 90 days from the end of Desert Storm if he had intentions of doing so. He provided the list of weapons that he had to destroy to the UN that must be destroyed in the presence of UN inspectors. No outside force prevented him from destroying the weapons he identified to the UN, there were no shortages of inspectors... Saddam refussed to send the scientists to a third neutral country that could have avoided the conflict... the US or President Bush is not responsible for the irresponsibility of Saddam.
 
Topsez said:
The restart of hostilities was based on best assessments available. The dictator Saddam could have met his ceasefire conditions in 90 days from the end of Desert Storm if he had intentions of doing so. He provided the list of weapons that he had to destroy to the UN that must be destroyed in the presence of UN inspectors. No outside force prevented him from destroying the weapons he identified to the UN, there were no shortages of inspectors... Saddam refussed to send the scientists to a third neutral country that could have avoided the conflict... the US or President Bush is not responsible for the irresponsibility of Saddam.

This does nothing to avoid guilt. As it happens, I think there are now geopolitical reasons to stay, but we ought to be honest about those. It's got nothing whatever to do with terrorism or weapons of mass destruction. It's got to do with controlling who gets oil, and mainly to do with denying it to China and Russia.
 
This does nothing to avoid guilt. As it happens, I think there are now geopolitical reasons to stay, but we ought to be honest about those. It's got nothing whatever to do with terrorism or weapons of mass destruction. It's got to do with controlling who gets oil, and mainly to do with denying it to China and Russia.
The balance of power in the Mid East since WWI has been the responsibility of England, France and the United States. The original national interests of these countries were the oil reserves that would be needed in WWII and any future wars. However, the demand for domestic oil in these nations now trumps the war reasons. America in particular imports over 20,000,000 barrels of oil each day, 365 days a year. Yes, our national interest in the Mid East are oil and Israel. Managment or mismanagment of the ME nations following their defeat in WWI and II when they chose the wrong side to support has caused terrorism along with the establishment of Israel.

President Bush stated after 9-11 we would no longer mismanage the ME and changed the foreign policy indicating America would no longer prop up dictators or play dictators against dictators but pursue a policy of democracy.

Oil is a world commodity like corn, water or air and is not to be controlled but offered to the open market for the bid price based on demand. To control oil is an act of war as it would be if a country attempted to control water or air. Russia has been interested in Iran since the end of WWII and was quite busy there while the US was involved in the Korean Conflict. China is busy around the world acting similarly. The interest in Iraq in 1990 was oil and the fear that Saddam would overpower neighbors and become the ME oil King and the most powerful man in the world by setting production rates.

The reason for the restart of Iraq War was Saddam's contempt for the US and the UN and little more. Now Iran is the threat and not Iraq and Iran has the interests in Iraq for the same reason Saddam had interests in Kuwait. At least that is my opinion.

The 1990 war was about oil, the restart not but continues partly in concern for the above stated concerns for free flow of the oil commodity. America doesn't desire to own oil fields, it desires to purchase oil freely on a world market.
 
Topsez said:
The balance of power in the Mid East since WWI has been the responsibility of England, France and the United States.

It should have been the responsibility of the nations of the Middle East all along.

Topsez said:
The original national interests of these countries were the oil reserves that would be needed in WWII and any future wars. However, the demand for domestic oil in these nations now trumps the war reasons. America in particular imports over 20,000,000 barrels of oil each day, 365 days a year. Yes, our national interest in the Mid East are oil and Israel. Managment or mismanagment of the ME nations following their defeat in WWI and II when they chose the wrong side to support has caused terrorism along with the establishment of Israel.

So Saudi Arabia should have backed Turkey? Anyway, the rest is correct.

Topsez said:
President Bush stated after 9-11 we would no longer mismanage the ME and changed the foreign policy indicating America would no longer prop up dictators or play dictators against dictators but pursue a policy of democracy.

OK.

Topsez said:
Oil is a world commodity like corn, water or air and is not to be controlled but offered to the open market for the bid price based on demand.

Says who? It would seem to me that, if we're being completely honest about the whole free market thing, if a country anywhere chose to keep its resources to itself, it should be allowed to do so.

Of course, pretty much any Middle Eastern country that kept its oil off the market would result in general pandemonium. I have no particular problem with preventing that by force; my problem is that we say one thing and do another. All this talk of free markets is B.S.

Topsez said:
To control oil is an act of war as it would be if a country attempted to control water or air.

You don't say! Do you realize what a can of worms you're opening here? If we've been managing the ME (as you admit) then we've been controlling oil ipso facto. Which must also mean that we've been committing acts of war, eh?

Actually, I realize it's not that simple. But Israel, for instance, has definitely been committing acts of war against Syria, Lebanon, and Iraq through controlling water supplies. This is a far bigger issue than most people in America realize.

Topsez said:
Russia has been interested in Iran since the end of WWII and was quite busy there while the US was involved in the Korean Conflict. China is busy around the world acting similarly. The interest in Iraq in 1990 was oil and the fear that Saddam would overpower neighbors and become the ME oil King and the most powerful man in the world by setting production rates.

That was part of it, yes. There was little fear in America that he would do that; the Saudis however were quite frightened of this possibility, and they wanted him dealt with. That is why we got involved, all B.S. aside.

Topsez said:
The reason for the restart of Iraq War was Saddam's contempt for the US and the UN and little more. Now Iran is the threat and not Iraq and Iran has the interests in Iraq for the same reason Saddam had interests in Kuwait. At least that is my opinion.

I disagree. We were depending on discoveries in the Caspian sea region to make Middle Eastern oil less important and forestall global production peak. However, it came out in late 1999 that the Caspian region, originally thought to contain nearly half a trillion barrels, really only contained about 50 billion. When Bush and Cheney took control, they held a closed investigation on world energy and realized that we would have to set up as many police stations in the ME as possible to maintain global dominance. This had already been understood as an eventuality since Reagan.

Topsez said:
The 1990 war was about oil, the restart not but continues partly in concern for the above stated concerns for free flow of the oil commodity. America doesn't desire to own oil fields, it desires to purchase oil freely on a world market.

Again, I disagree. Of course we want to control as much oil as possible. We don't want to own Iraq's oil per se, we just want to get the money from the sale of the oil, and be able to control it in case of a shortage.
 
It's hardly cowardly to stop fighting when you realize that you shouldn't have started the fight to begin with.

thats a great answer :roll:
we made a mess, and they can clean it up
that should work real well
but i guess if people believe that teh only reason there is violence in Iraq is because the US is there, than i see how you would convince yourselves of that
 
thats a great answer :roll:
we made a mess, and they can clean it up
that should work real well
but i guess if people believe that teh only reason there is violence in Iraq is because the US is there, than i see how you would convince yourselves of that
So you think things would have exploded to this level , with the same amount of dying and wounded people (Iraqis) in Iraq had we never even pursued "Iraqi Freedom"????

My guess would be NO.

And I think it would be alot closer to the truth than the contrary.
 
Says who? It would seem to me that, if we're being completely honest about the whole free market thing, if a country anywhere chose to keep its resources to itself, it should be allowed to do so.
I’m not a lawyer but I think it would be illegal and considered an act of war if Canada diverted water from a prime electric power plant in NY State… guess it may be the nation affected to make the judgment considering there is no international police or prosecutor with authority to bring a violator to justice. An example would be if a farmer allows cars to travel across his farm because it creates a shortcut but later decides to use the trail for farmland the citizens could sue based on a time allowed to use the ingress egress and be granted a legal right of way.

Of course, pretty much any Middle Eastern country that kept its oil off the market would result in general pandemonium. I have no particular problem with preventing that by force; my problem is that we say one thing and do another. All this talk of free markets is B.S.
OPEC actually operates as a single oil King and is tolerated because they use reason and don’t constrain oil as a tool for other than profit.
You don't say! Do you realize what a can of worms you're opening here? If we've been managing the ME (as you admit) then we've been controlling oil ipso facto. Which must also mean that we've been committing acts of war, eh?
The spoils of war go to the victor. Had we kicked Canada’s butt in the Revolutionary or war of 1812 and had we so decided when taking Mexico City in the Mexican-American War America would be all of North America. The Mid East was conquered.

Actually, I realize it's not that simple. But Israel, for instance, has definitely been committing acts of war against Syria, Lebanon, and Iraq through controlling water supplies. This is a far bigger issue than most people in America realize.
These nations are all spoils of France and England… we were not in the League of Nations.
That was part of it, yes. There was little fear in America that he would do that; the Saudis however were quite frightened of this possibility, and they wanted him dealt with. That is why we got involved, all B.S. aside.
Could be, but Saddam was offered a dozen chances to leave Kuwait without hostilities by the UN… lots of resolutions. Saddam was projecting force that worried the entire ME as Iran worries the entire ME.
I disagree. We were depending on discoveries in the Caspian sea region to make Middle Eastern oil less important and forestall global production peak. However, it came out in late 1999 that the Caspian region, originally thought to contain nearly half a trillion barrels, really only contained about 50 billion. When Bush and Cheney took control, they held a closed investigation on world energy and realized that we would have to set up as many police stations in the ME as possible to maintain global dominance. This had already been understood as an eventuality since Reagan.
I don’t think this can be proven… I think there was a lot of concern about balance of power after Iran cut away from the puppet master and the Iraq-Iran War allowed the region to be ignored until Saddam failed to stay inline.
Again, I disagree. Of course we want to control as much oil as possible. We don't want to own Iraq's oil per se, we just want to get the money from the sale of the oil, and be able to control it in case of a shortage.
What do you mean get the money form the sale? All the ME nations have western technology extract the oil on a percentage basis. I don’t think a nation would go to war with another nation for a private company to gain a commission on oil extracted. Regardless the oil goes on the world market if the commission goes to French companies or American companies… Much of the oil produced in Alaska goes strait to Japan, it is American produced oil but belongs to the world’s highest bidder and usually closest customer.

Forget about the oil and focus on the facts that congress voted authorizing the conflict to restart in Iraq… I listened to much of the debate and recall the theme of threat to America used repeatedly… that theme was used in the Clinton administration when the congress passed and signed a policy of regime change in Iraq regardless if Saddam lived up to his ceasefire agreement. The United States of America congress passed a resolution to send US forces into war in Iraq… the reason doesn’t matter. Nor should it matter how easy or hard victory comes as compared to the Korean Conflict… at one point we were almost pushed into the Sea of Japan but a new plan was offered and victory was sought with terrible loss of lives. Once the first soldier dies after a nation sends him or her, those who sent him or her owe that citizen nothing less than victory. If we didn’t learn anything from Vietnam but this simple rule for war then elected officials should be willing to bet their first born on the correctness of their choice to send soldiers off to die.

Those who chant Bush lied and people died should be drowned out by the voices of congress that voted yes to go to war. They should be his steadfast cheerleaders and even those who voted against the conflict should fall in line as they do in respect to laws they didn’t agree to. Let their replacements who didn’t vote for the war end it and no one else. Senator Robert Byrd begged and pleaded with the Senate to walk to the Vietnam Memorial to think before voting and Senator Kerry and others shunned him. If now you don’t shun those who ask forgiveness for their wrong vote, well you deserve them as your leaders. But soldiers don’t deserve to be divorced from their decisions that cost so much. After Vietnam there should be no and I mean absolutely no excuse for wrong decision for war.
 
I thought the same thing but understand that the rules of engagement have been changed allowing local area commanders authority they formerly didn't have, that in itself is a force multiplier. I think the war should have been overwhelming force from day one and should be fought that way now. Indications of getting tough with Iran and Syria ... and hopefully Saudi Arabia will allow a posibility for progress and stabalization.

The problem is every tone from the left and now some on the right is that we need to use timetables, staggered withdraw and similar means of failure... Soldiers continue to die under such programs that are not employed with a goal of victory or success. I personally, would prefer to do what I said above and remove all forces as speedily as possible if victory wasn't the goal... How could a commander in chief visit the parents of fallen soldiers knowing they died for nothing?

The rules of engagement most definitely have changed. One huge difference is the enemy is not known in many cases and the enemy can never be eliminated. We may force the enemy to lie dormant until a later date, but that's about all.

One opinion I have of this war is that it is a war that cannot be finished or controlled by America. It must be by the Iraqi's. America adding more or less troops will not make a difference other then forcing the insurgents to change tactics and/or allowing insurgents to recruit more Iraqi's to stop the occupation of their country.

I dissagree. The left and the mainstream media balances the cost of the war with what that same money could buy for Americans. Such selfish balance while troops are in danger at the directions of Congress is repulsive.

What does that have to do with the "war on terror" being or not being a police action?
 
The reason for the restart of Iraq War was Saddam's contempt for the US and the UN and little more. Now Iran is the threat and not Iraq and Iran has the interests in Iraq for the same reason Saddam had interests in Kuwait. At least that is my opinion.

If his contempt was the reason, its a useless war. We had him under our control, he couldn't fly planes or use radar, couldn't attack anybody. He was impotent. The requirement of global reach that President Bush used as a threshhold for military action didn't exist, so reasons were manufactured.

We supported Hussein in his war against the more powerful Iran, helping him retain power, even though we knew at the time he was using chemical weapons on the Iranians and the Kurds. Then, after pushing his troops out of Kuwait, we stop short of entering Baghdad to oust him, leaving him in power once again. Then, after planning his overthrow in cooperation with the Kurds, we let him fly (no fly zone, remember?) military vehicles specifically to kill them during the uprising. So, he remains in power because we helped him yet again and let him slaughter our allies.

Then after a long period of time when he hasn't attacked anybody, can't attack anybody, we have just got to run over to Iraq and remove him from power because he's arrogant. Makes sense to me...
 
So you think things would have exploded to this level , with the same amount of dying and wounded people (Iraqis) in Iraq had we never even pursued "Iraqi Freedom"????

My guess would be NO.

And I think it would be alot closer to the truth than the contrary.

get over the fact that WE ARE THERE
you can cut and run like a coward, or we can do whatever it takes to stabilize the situation
but only a fool believes that all violence will end with the withdrawal of US troops
order must be restored prior to our departure, or it will be a rallying cry for all ME terrrorists

and besides Cut and Run it would be great to hear a dem/lib alternative
 
thats a great answer :roll:
we made a mess, and they can clean it up

But we're NOT cleaning it up. We're not ABLE to clean it up. We're just making an even bigger mess.

DeeJayH said:
that should work real well

There is no solution that will work out real well. President Bush got us into a catastrophe and it's time to pick the least bad solution.

DeeJayH said:
but i guess if people believe that teh only reason there is violence in Iraq is because the US is there, than i see how you would convince yourselves of that

Even the Iraqis themselves think that the US presence causes more violence than it prevents.
 
get over the fact that WE ARE THERE
you can cut and run like a coward, or we can do whatever it takes to stabilize the situation
but only a fool believes that all violence will end with the withdrawal of US troops
order must be restored prior to our departure, or it will be a rallying cry for all ME terrrorists

and besides Cut and Run it would be great to hear a Democrat/lib alternative

Well, regardless of whether we withdraw in 6 months or 6 years. They are still going to fight like hell when we leave.

All we MIGHT do is delay the inevitable... at low low cost of a billion per week or so. Sure we might """"""stabilize"""""""" Iraq. But the reason for all the quotations is that it will only look stable, until all US boots are back on US soil.....
 
But we're NOT cleaning it up. We're not ABLE to clean it up. We're just making an even bigger mess.
LOL... you just made me think of a good comparison.

In "Big Daddy" when Adam Sandler's character just throws a bunch of newspaper over top of the kid's spilled milk, and does the same to the kid's vomit. But instead of cleaning it up, he just leaves it there.

The Newspaper represents the 20.000 more soldiers, and the spilled milk/vomit represents the Iraq Chaos. But in the end when you carefully peel back the newspapers from the milk/vomit. You still have the same mess you had before.
 
The rules of engagement most definitely have changed. One huge difference is the enemy is not known in many cases and the enemy can never be eliminated. We may force the enemy to lie dormant until a later date, but that's about all.

One opinion I have of this war is that it is a war that cannot be finished or controlled by America. It must be by the Iraqi's. America adding more or less troops will not make a difference other then forcing the insurgents to change tactics and/or allowing insurgents to recruit more Iraqi's to stop the occupation of their country.
Here lies the possibility in the new strategy that is agreement with your conclusion… The insurgents can indeed wait us out but if security is established in Baghdad and Al Ambar province and jobs and services are offered along with an equitable distribution of oil revenue and power then there is a chance that the Iraqis security forces could deal alone with a much less Iraqi supported insurgency considering the people would finally have normality. Use brutal force to clear along with a stable security force that keeps it that way, stop the tit for tat cycle of reprisal while holding a carrot.

What will not work is the US congress fighting against the administration for any alternative other than simply leaving. A vote against the troop surge is telling the insurgents to kill more Americans and the Americans will demand the US president be fired and the US troops withdrawn. If the Left doesn’t want to back the surge or offer an alternative for victory then let them cut off funding and accept responsibility for failure. The current actions on the left is like pleading with the insurgents to kill more Americans so the left can be held harmless for failure as they insure failure.

What does that have to do with the "war on terror" being or not being a police action?
The war on terror is in some cases a police action as you state and is multifaceted. We cannot go to Korea and tell the Koreans not to grow rice and we cannot go to Afghanistan and tell the farmers not to grow poppies that fund underground ventures. But, the State Department could do much more to offer alternatives in many areas to improve Islam’s view of the West, a clear positive measure were the natural disasters in the Pacific and Pakistan response of Western compassion. You simply can’t bomb people into a different way of thinking unless you are willing to bomb a large portion of the world’s population causing submission.


If his contempt was the reason, its a useless war. We had him under our control, he couldn't fly planes or use radar, couldn't attack anybody. He was impotent. The requirement of global reach that President Bush used as a threshhold for military action didn't exist, so reasons were manufactured.
What you say was learned after the restart of hostilities, no one had a crystal ball to see the future. We had a defiant tyrant that wouldn’t take offers of peace prior to the Gulf War, over a dozen UN resolutions offered to avoid that war, then continued defiance in meeting ceasefire conditions he agreed to for over a decade that could have been accomplished within 90 days… The US government’s official policy was for regime change in Iraq enacted in the Clinton administration. We were struck on 9-11 and took action against the party that orchestrated the attack but the movement was still intact enough to formulate another attack. I think any reasonable person would have considered Saddam to be a threat to the US and reasoned that he would use the enemy of our enemy to strike at us because he was so unreasonable and declared America his enemy. His position was so unreasonable considering he could have lived up to his ceasefire conditions in 90 days and been a free dictator to build nukes, and acquire zillions of tons of WMD’s after sanctions were lifted based on UN resolution that clearly stated he must only do as told to become a free member in the world community. Only a madman would pass up such an opportunity to be free of responsibility for the deaths and damage he caused in the Gulf war. He was an enemy of America that could have given wmd’s to OBL and company to clandestinely strike his enemy.

Look at the resolutions involving Saddam and consider a parallel… You rob a gun shop, the judge says write down on a piece of paper how many illegal guns you have and then I’ll send over some deputies and together we will destroy the illegal guns and you don’t have to go to jail or even be put on probation. Would you have to be totally insane not to accept such an offer? You love guns then destroy the illegal ones and then be free to buy or build your own without big brother looking over your shoulder… why would any reasonable person trust an insane person that has declared you his enemy that applies insanity approach to a problem resolution within his control?

We supported Hussein in his war against the more powerful Iran, helping him retain power, even though we knew at the time he was using chemical weapons on the Iranians and the Kurds. Then, after pushing his troops out of Kuwait, we stop short of entering Baghdad to oust him, leaving him in power once again. Then, after planning his overthrow in cooperation with the Kurds, we let him fly (no fly zone, remember?) military vehicles specifically to kill them during the uprising. So, he remains in power because we helped him yet again and let him slaughter our allies.
There must be a dozen separate debates in this paragraph but I will answer that Prez Bush stated after 9-11 we will no longer prop up or use dictators to manage the balance of power in the ME as a foreign policy.

Then after a long period of time when he hasn't attacked anybody, can't attack anybody, we have just got to run over to Iraq and remove him from power because he's arrogant. Makes sense to me...
The majority of the duly elected officials of our democratic republic sent the warriors there to accomplish a mission. The Prez of the US has a personal check book and an Executive budget that will not fund war. The nation sent warriors off on a mission that was very broadly supported by congress and the American people.
 
What you say was learned after the restart of hostilities, no one had a crystal ball to see the future. We had a defiant tyrant that wouldn’t take offers of peace prior to the Gulf War, over a dozen UN resolutions offered to avoid that war, then continued defiance in meeting ceasefire conditions he agreed to for over a decade that could have been accomplished within 90 days… The US government’s official policy was for regime change in Iraq enacted in the Clinton administration. We were struck on 9-11 and took action against the party that orchestrated the attack but the movement was still intact enough to formulate another attack. I think any reasonable person would have considered Saddam to be a threat to the US and reasoned that he would use the enemy of our enemy to strike at us because he was so unreasonable and declared America his enemy. His position was so unreasonable considering he could have lived up to his ceasefire conditions in 90 days and been a free dictator to build nukes, and acquire zillions of tons of WMD’s after sanctions were lifted based on UN resolution that clearly stated he must only do as told to become a free member in the world community. Only a madman would pass up such an opportunity to be free of responsibility for the deaths and damage he caused in the Gulf war. He was an enemy of America that could have given wmd’s to OBL and company to clandestinely strike his enemy.


There must be a dozen separate debates in this paragraph but I will answer that Prez Bush stated after 9-11 we will no longer prop up or use dictators to manage the balance of power in the ME as a foreign policy.


The majority of the duly elected officials of our democratic republic sent the warriors there to accomplish a mission. The Prez of the US has a personal check book and an Executive budget that will not fund war. The nation sent warriors off on a mission that was very broadly supported by congress and the American people.

The things I was talking about were known at the time. And what President Bush said about propping up dictators didn't apply to Iraq - we weren't propping them up. Actually, we were keeping Hussein down.

You do understand that President Bush held no real threat to go into Iraq without approval from Congress. So most of the members of Congress voted to make that threat real, so Hussein could be intimidated. I don't think a majority would have voted for an immediate war.
 
Back
Top Bottom