|
Post by moparpaul on Nov 15, 2006 18:35:20 GMT -5
Just hitting on a couple of things...
I don't think anyone was jumping on Bazzy and I certainly wasn't. I just can't believe that anyone can seriously compare the two. It's basic Bush hating with no basis.
Oil was never a reason. He (Saddam) could have easily prevented this whole thing from happening by abiding by the UN resolutions that he agreed to. He refused.
He harbored terrorists. Zarkawi for one. Terrorists whose sole purpose in life is to kill as many Americans as possible.
There isn't a whole lot we can do about North Korea now that they are nuclear and that's a shame. We should have done something about that years ago. Hopefully, we won't make the same mistake with Iran.
I think it is the job of the United States to police the world. Somebody has to do it. If not, we'd be speaking Japanese and all of Europe would be speaking German right now. We can't just sit by and allow maniacs to take over the world.
I think Bush does think about the lives lost. But, at the end of the day, we didn't start this. We are better off having the military fight them over there than us have to fight them over here. We are doing the right thing in Iraq. We are killing terrorists.
Everyone had access to the same intelligence. And yes, there were WMD's in Iraq. That was what one of the resolutions was designed for. To monitor that he was not making them anymore. He kicked the inspectors out in order to resume manufacturing WMDs. There was no other reason. He moved them out before we went in because we allowed him too much time.
We're in the middle of WW III right now. The war against terrorism. People better start getting serious about it. Now is not the time for appeasement.
Everyone is entitled to their own opinions. I know the above are just mine and certainly not with what the majority of people believe and that's cool. Again, I wasn't jumping on Bazzy and if that is how it appeared I'm sorry. I just don't believe that their was some underlying theme with Bush no more than I believe Clinton ordered the air strikes in Sudan to deflect attentions away from the Lewinsky scandal.
|
|
|
Post by swarm on Nov 15, 2006 18:46:51 GMT -5
I agree. There are many dictatorship/totalitarian governments that we've never threatened to invade or think they should have democracy. The ONLY reason we went to Iraq was to cash in on the oil. If Iraq's land was a toxic waste dump, do you think we would've gone over there? Now I'm not advocating that Iraq was better with Saddam, but let's not kid ourselves as to why we went there. Saddam ruled Iraq for decades. Yep, we are raking in the barrels of oil aren't we. That was the only reason...you are absolutly correct. Smart guy...that Payback ok Trav, then why did we go there? Payback is 100% correct and you only posted this because you are trolling. so let's hear it. if it wasn't oil, why did we go there?
|
|
|
Post by gwffantrav on Nov 15, 2006 19:10:45 GMT -5
actually Paul summed it up pretty nice...and I've said the same thing past threads.
There you go Robbie
|
|
|
Post by tenzan on Nov 15, 2006 19:20:10 GMT -5
I have a hard time believing that the invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with oil. Regardless of what administration was in office -- government is government -- the oil was at least an incentive to go ahead with it. While I'm glad that Saddam is gone -- I can't really cheer for our Commander in Chief. There are no innocent parties here -- everyone has a greater agenda than they're admitting to I think.
|
|
|
Post by gatekeeper on Nov 15, 2006 21:37:13 GMT -5
Oil was never a reason. He harbored terrorists. Zarkawi for one. Terrorists whose sole purpose in life is to kill as many Americans as possible. Oil was never a reason? What is the Bush family business? Oil. And Iraqi's have never attacked the U.S. Those terrorists were from Afghanistan who we fought for about 2 weks before going into Iraq. I think it is the job of the United States to police the world. Somebody has to do it. If not, we'd be speaking Japanese and all of Europe would be speaking German right now. We can't just sit by and allow maniacs to take over the world. If it's the job of the U.S. to police the world, our military will be gone in about 20 years because we will always be at war. Plus, if we can't really get control of Iraq, how can we fight a powerful nation like China or North Korea? I agree that we should help nations when possible, but there are so many nations that aren't democracies and have corrupt govts. it would be a losing battle.
|
|
|
Post by Trent Lawless on Nov 15, 2006 21:56:14 GMT -5
I'm not gonna get into the politics of this (people who know me can probably guess my views), but I just want to point out what I think is the smartest thing said in this entire thread: If it's the job of the U.S. to police the world, our military will be gone in about 20 years because we will always be at war. Never been in the military (although my dad and father-in-law both did a year in Vietnam), but I can't imagine an endless war would be good for morale.
|
|
|
Post by moparpaul on Nov 15, 2006 22:10:24 GMT -5
Oil was never a reason? What is the Bush family business? Oil. And Iraqi's have never attacked the U.S. Those terrorists were from Afghanistan who we fought for about 2 weks before going into Iraq. No. Yes the business is oil. There's not one shred of proof the connects the two. However, the scandalous oil for food program might explain the UN's reluctance to take Saddam out of power. WMDs, Zarkawi, UN Resolutions. Those are the reasons. Unfortunately, any war with one of those two will not take place on the ground, air or sea. It will be nukes and it becomes moot at that point. But we are not fighting Iraq. We're not fighting any country. That's what makes this war so tough. Terrorists are everywhere and we must kill them. I don't want to sound like some Ruby Ridge, gun toting, neocon nut, though it may be too late to sound like that... I'm really concerned about terrorism. Whatever it takes to kill these maniacs is what has to happen.
|
|
|
Post by moparpaul on Nov 15, 2006 22:18:42 GMT -5
I'm not gonna get into the politics of this (people who know me can probably guess my views) I don't want this to be political. To me it's not. My view of Iraq has nothing to do with where I stand at on the political side. To be honest, I'm not happy at all with Bush. He does not represent the political ideals that I believe in and support. He has been a huge disappointment to me personally. He has overspent and has yet to see a piece of legislation that he didn't like. Mr. President it's called a VETO. Try it sometime. It won't hurt, I promise. But I do have a strong opinion on how we should attack terrorism even though it's not the most popular one.
|
|
|
Post by theace4ever on Nov 15, 2006 22:24:41 GMT -5
I usually stay out of political discussions...they usually end up bad, especially with my beliefs and living in a "red" state, yet I know enough to not buy into all the hype that our govt. feds us. First off, I will have to say that I agree 110% with Payback and Swarm on this. The whole Iraq debacle has been about nothing more than oil... where were the WMDs? Which of the terrorists that hijacked planes were Iraqi? If Im correct the majority of them were SAUDI and not a one of them were Iraqi... What did invading Iraq have to do with 9-11 and the so-called "War on Terror" Im in no way advocating what Saddam did in his reign, but it's my strong opinion that he had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11 What this boils down to is Bush Jr. trying to fix Daddy's screw-up to benefit himself, his family, and the corporations in which they have their money tied into... who loses??? The rest of us... So instead of actually paying attention to someplace we should be paying attention to... North Korea, a country ran by a crazed psychopath that seems hell-bent on starting a nuclear war, we keep our troops in Iraq with a lack of resources such as body armor. Iraq is this generations Vietnam and right now, I only see it getting worse... two sad truths in this matter... War is profitable (for the right people) & and those who dont learn from history...are doomed to repeat it.
|
|
|
Post by gatekeeper on Nov 15, 2006 22:31:24 GMT -5
I usually stay out of political discussions...they usually end up bad, especially with my beliefs and living in a "red" state, yet I know enough to not buy into all the hype that our govt. feds us. First off, I will have to say that I agree 110% with Payback and Swarm on this. The whole Iraq debacle has been about nothing more than oil... where were the WMDs? Which of the terrorists that hijacked planes were Iraqi? If Im correct the majority of them were SAUDI and not a one of them were Iraqi... What did invading Iraq have to do with 9-11 and the so-called "War on Terror" Im in no way advocating what Saddam did in his reign, but it's my strong opinion that he had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11 What this boils down to is Bush Jr. trying to fix Daddy's screw-up to benefit himself, his family, and the corporations in which they have their money tied into... who loses??? The rest of us... So instead of actually paying attention to someplace we should be paying attention to... North Korea, a country ran by a crazed psychopath that seems hell-bent on starting a nuclear war, we keep our troops in Iraq with a lack of resources such as body armor. Iraq is this generations Vietnam and right now, I only see it getting worse... two sad truths in this matter... War is profitable (for the right people) & and those who dont learn from history...are doomed to repeat it. Amazingly strong!
|
|
|
Post by Shon Maxx on Nov 16, 2006 7:42:52 GMT -5
I was all for the war with Iraq in the beginning, think that they did indeed have WMD's (my mistake for actually believing our government). But now something is seriously wrong if, 4 years after we took over the country, we lost almost as many people as we did in 9-11. And now it seems like our people are just going over there to stand against a wall, waiting for their turn to be shot or blown up.
For the record, I have nothing but the upmost respect for our soldiers. Whom I have lost total respect for are our leaders who screwed up an entire campaign that should never have begun in the first place. The Taliban was one thing, but Iraq was pointless, and they knew it.
And the terrorism that is led by the Islamic extemists is not going to end even if we off Bin Ladin. Whenever you point a gun at someone and he runs away, he's just going to get a bigger gun. It won't stop until someone there steps forward and shows them that Bin Ladin's full of $#!@ from the beginning. Islam is about treating EVERYONE with compassion and respect, and a jihad is a personal, spiritual battle, not some war with another country.
Hopefully someone will step forward soon before it gets to nukes, and I have a feeling the first country to use them will not be any of them...
Take care,
Jay
|
|
|
Post by Highway61Revisited on Nov 16, 2006 14:17:23 GMT -5
Just hitting on a couple of things... I don't think anyone was jumping on Bazzy and I certainly wasn't. I just can't believe that anyone can seriously compare the two. It's basic Bush hating with no basis. Oil was never a reason. He (Saddam) could have easily prevented this whole thing from happening by abiding by the UN resolutions that he agreed to. He refused. He harbored terrorists. Zarkawi for one. Terrorists whose sole purpose in life is to kill as many Americans as possible. There isn't a whole lot we can do about North Korea now that they are nuclear and that's a shame. We should have done something about that years ago. Hopefully, we won't make the same mistake with Iran. I think it is the job of the United States to police the world. Somebody has to do it. If not, we'd be speaking Japanese and all of Europe would be speaking German right now. We can't just sit by and allow maniacs to take over the world. I think Bush does think about the lives lost. But, at the end of the day, we didn't start this. We are better off having the military fight them over there than us have to fight them over here. We are doing the right thing in Iraq. We are killing terrorists. Everyone had access to the same intelligence. And yes, there were WMD's in Iraq. That was what one of the resolutions was designed for. To monitor that he was not making them anymore. He kicked the inspectors out in order to resume manufacturing WMDs. There was no other reason. He moved them out before we went in because we allowed him too much time. We're in the middle of WW III right now. The war against terrorism. People better start getting serious about it. Now is not the time for appeasement. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions. I know the above are just mine and certainly not with what the majority of people believe and that's cool. Again, I wasn't jumping on Bazzy and if that is how it appeared I'm sorry. I just don't believe that their was some underlying theme with Bush no more than I believe Clinton ordered the air strikes in Sudan to deflect attentions away from the Lewinsky scandal. Every single commission has shown that there no ties behind Saddam Hussein and 9/11. That's an absolute fact. Where exactly are these WMD that Saddam has "hidden" and where is the proof that that happened? "Policing the world" and not allowing maniacs to take over are two completely different things. Saddam was an impotent dictator by the time we arrived and certainly had no realistic plans to take over the world. We're doing the right thing in Iraq? Thousands and thousands of Iraqi lives have been lost--including a great deal of women and children--everyone we kill isn't a "terrorist". And we have created a haven in what was an otherwise secular nation pre-2003. With fear governments find it is much easier to impose their will upon people. However as Public Enemy's Chuck D stated, "Don't believe the hype."
|
|
|
Post by moparpaul on Nov 16, 2006 18:56:54 GMT -5
Every single commission has shown that there no ties behind Saddam Hussein and 9/11. That's an absolute fact. So what. Does that change the fact that Saddam was in violation of endless UN resolutions? I don't know. Syria? Russia? We could ask some of the kurds that he used these WMDs against but they're dead. They certainly didn't vanish in thin air. That's your opinion and that's cool. It is my belief that he had every intention to create WMDs and arm terrorists with them to use against the US. Absolutely. People die in war. Lay that blame at the feet of Saddam. He could have prevented it from happening by complying with the resolutions. See above. Chuck D is an idiot.
|
|
|
Post by gwffantrav on Nov 16, 2006 19:24:30 GMT -5
Actually, no one claimed (except maybe misinformed people) that Hussein had ties to 9/11.
It was called a preemptive strike. After 9/11, it was determined that something like that just wasn't going to happen again. If you had pre 9/11 intelligence that bin Laden was going to absolutely blow up the WTC with planes, would you have taken action or waited until after it happened? It seems many on the other side would have waiting because there were only rumors out there. We wouldn't have know for sure until it happened....like anything in life.
The US failed to take preemptive strike in 38 against Hitler when we had a chance and it cost many Jewish people their lives in the thousands. But, I'm sure there was rumors Hitler was going to exterminate the Jews. Personally, we failed the Jews by not taking a pre-emptive strike against him and look what happened.
I know many may hate Bush and I appreciate that. I don't think he's any savior by any means. He's had his mistakes. But really...let's be honest.
And if people complain about lost lives...how many of those lives were caused by actual Americans? I bet it's pretty small...
|
|
|
Post by swarm on Nov 16, 2006 19:30:15 GMT -5
Every single commission has shown that there no ties behind Saddam Hussein and 9/11. That's an absolute fact. So what. Does that change the fact that Saddam was in violation of endless UN resolutions? I don't know. Syria? Russia? We could ask some of the kurds that he used these WMDs against but they're dead. They certainly didn't vanish in thin air. That's your opinion and that's cool. It is my belief that he had every intention to create WMDs and arm terrorists with them to use against the US. Absolutely. People die in war. Lay that blame at the feet of Saddam. He could have prevented it from happening by complying with the resolutions. See above. Chuck D is an idiot. I don't usually get into political discussions, but this post is about as strong as it gets.
|
|
|
Post by Highway61Revisited on Nov 16, 2006 19:43:33 GMT -5
Every single commission has shown that there no ties behind Saddam Hussein and 9/11. That's an absolute fact. So what. Does that change the fact that Saddam was in violation of endless UN resolutions? I don't know. Syria? Russia? We could ask some of the kurds that he used these WMDs against but they're dead. They certainly didn't vanish in thin air. That's your opinion and that's cool. It is my belief that he had every intention to create WMDs and arm terrorists with them to use against the US. Absolutely. People die in war. Lay that blame at the feet of Saddam. He could have prevented it from happening by complying with the resolutions. See above. Chuck D is an idiot. Funny fact: we actually violated a UN resolution by GOING to war with Iraq. Hypocrisy is tons of fun. Where's the proof that these WMD existed? Every bit of post-war intelligence has proven that we were absolutely, positively WRONG when it came to WMD. Again, Saddam was an old, senile, impotent dictator who was really just waiting for death. You'd have a strong argument basing it on his sons. Where do you get this belief that he was going to "arm terrorists" with WMD? Most terrorists had a disdain for Saddam and likewise. Saddam was a power-hungry, attention whore. He wanted the satisfaction of bringing America down to it's knees. He knew he couldn't do that, he knew he didn't have WMD, so in an egotisical move we got the UN battle of 2002. (By the way, this is all based off of Iraqi high-end political journals that were never supposed to be read. Seymour Hersh, the brilliant investigative reporter, covered it extensively in an article.) People die in war, yes. But should we send them overseas in a needless war fought specifically for political gain. I guess it's ok. The soliders are just pawns in the game, right? Chuck D. has actually done alot to raise attention to education problems in the ghetto, helping stop class warfare, etc. Just because you don't agree with him doesn't make him an idiot. And I think the quote is very, very relevant in today's politics of fear culture myself.
|
|
|
Post by moparpaul on Nov 16, 2006 20:14:07 GMT -5
Funny fact: we actually violated a UN resolution by GOING to war with Iraq. Hypocrisy is tons of fun. Really? Which one? Check the northern section of Iraq. Look for the graves of the dead Kurds. No it doesn't. What about the satellite images of the trucks moving from Iraq into Syria? What were they carrying on those trucks? I would like to know. It's my opinion. Based on Saddam's past and his hatred of the US. I wonder why he harbored Zarkawi? Seymour Hersh is a Bush hater. See Chuck D in previous post. You see it as political gain. I see it as keeping America safe. That doesn't make him any less of an idiot. I think he's an idiot because of the nonsense that comes out of his mouth. Bush stole the election, The levees in New Orleans were blown up, etc. EDIT: I screwed one of the quotes up.
|
|
|
Post by moparpaul on Nov 16, 2006 20:26:10 GMT -5
For the record, I'm taking myself out of this discussion. This is really a subject that people are generally strongly for or strongly against. I have now resorted to name calling with bashing Chuck D and there really isn't a need to do that in order to state my opinion despite how I feel about him personally.
The only other direction it can go from here is south. All due respect to everyone who has stated their opinions. There really isn't much more I can say other than repeating the same thing.
|
|
|
Post by Highway61Revisited on Nov 16, 2006 20:34:05 GMT -5
Take a look at the UN Charter (Resolution 1441, I believe). Not to mention the DSM (Downing Street Memo) which showed that Bush was essentially going to invade no matter what. He never got UN approval and just marched straight into the war. For someone who cared so much about the UN Resolutions that Saddam was violating, you'd think the President would have taken time to comply himself, no?
CIA reports have stated that there is no conclusive evidence that Saddam was harboring Zarqawi. It wouldn't make sense lined up with historical precedent.
How exactly are we protecting the American public when we've created a haven for terrorists and a recruiting ground for al-Queda in Iraq? It was a soverign, secular nation. Saddam was a terrible guy, we all agree there. But how exactly did invading Iraq (worsening the situation) make us safer?
Seymour Hersh used original source documents for his material. We aren't talking about Michael Moore here, we're talking about a brilliant, critically-acclaimed investigative journalist.
Bush stealing the election(s), is one thing. I definitely agree that the levees in New Orleans theory is absolutely absurd. But did Chuck D attach his name to that? I thought it was just silly Farrakhan crap.
|
|
|
Post by moparpaul on Nov 16, 2006 20:43:35 GMT -5
But did Chuck D attach his name to that? I thought it was just silly Farrakhan crap. Just to clarify on the above, Chuck D commented on what Farrakhan said by stating it was possible that what Farrakhan was saying was true. The radio host questioned Chuck D and asked him if he was serious (or something to that effect, can't remember exactly) and Chuck D basically said it could not be discounted that it happened.
|
|