why is it that the americans are trying to kill this great man, he has united the diffent faiths of iraq tht have been at war for hundreds of years, he has crushed random terrorist acts, and the people have a leader that they want

why is it that the americans are too blind to see that merely giving this man a seat in iraqs government will stop these unnecessary deaths.

they are going about this all wrong; the people have chosen their leader and are so loyal to him that they will follow him to the death. so what if he is not the governmont america chose, is he not doing what they wanted a new government to do: unite the people without oppression.

im really pissed off about americas stance on this man, would someon please tell me what awericas reasoning is

Where do you get that he has united everyone? He has his hardcore followers who have no qualms about using their military power to enforce their position and others who are riding the wave simply because they are fighting against the americans (which they would do regardless of who was doing the fighting). His only credential is that his father was a respected high ranking cleric. He himself is not a learned islamic scholar and is suspected of murdering a rival.

He has his hardcore followers who have no qualms about using their military power to enforce their position

Now who does that remind me of? ;)

Dee Cee

LOL
hmmmmmmmmm.. don't tell me now, don't tell me :D

dude, i just realised that i put his name backwards

Of course oil was a factor, as has been the case in every war that the US and every other western nation has been involved in from WW1 on. You don't think Britain and France tried to keep ownership of the Suez Canal in order to ensure the timely arrival of Yemen khat on their shores, did you?

So what? It's like saying "guns were used". It's obvious.

Oil was a factor but it wasn’t the primary reason for invading Iraq. American has much more sinister reasons for invading Iraq, hegemony in the Middle East, protection of Israel, and then protection of oil. It’s not a coincidence that the US invaded Iraq which borders both Iran and Syria, and reports say that the US wants to establish permanent bases in the country. Oil is what made Iraq important, not what made Iraq a target.

That would be the primary cause, yes. The politically correct way of putting it being "to stablize the region, guarantee the supply of natural resources to customers (which in turn benefits the citizens of the region), and provide a local example of democracy".

What remains to be seen is not whether the west can keep its hands off developing nations, but whether these nations can find and follow a path to global economic participation that *doesn't* involve terror, pogrom or plunder. If they cannot, then the west will likely continue to intervene on a global scale, whether the United States does so or not.

That would be the primary cause, yes. The politically correct way of putting it being "to stablize the region, guarantee the supply of natural resources to customers (which in turn benefits the citizens of the region), and provide a local example of democracy".

It’s more then just that, there are nations that are benefiting from Iraq (or at least thought they would), Israel does hold much sway in this particular administration, and many of the PNAC gang are Zionist sympathizers. It raises that time old question, who are they loyal to Israel or their home country first? Also much corporate interest, to open up Iraq to further exploration and securing American oil from the country. One could argue that the real reason why France and Russia did not approve of the war in Iraq is because of their oil interests and Iraqi debts owed to them. This war in Iraq has no actual value to the American population they are not positively affected by this war at all. Actually the average American now encounters more hatred, and animosity for her actions in Iraq. America today is less safe then prior to 9.11 without a shadow of a doubt. Iraq is a debacle for all involved, Israel is not safer, the corporations cannot operate effectively without a “democratic, neo-liberalist” government, and America has actually created more terrorists then she could imagine. God works in mysterious ways I guess (or Logos if you don’t believe in God).

Well, people in governance have always had biases. You're right in saying that questions of loyalty arise. But that question is one you ask before they're brought on board, and once they are, you have to let that question go and look at their actions while in office. I'm not so concerned about whether a higher up in the administration is a "zionist sympathizer" as I am about whether they're looking out for the best interests of the US.


This war in Iraq has no actual value to the American population they are not positively affected by this war at all.

That's one point of view. Here's another: Iraq was harboring terrorists, and had a track record of WMD weaponry and evidence (erroneous though it was) that more was in place and/or under development. Those two factors along with ignoring international sanctions through smuggling, bribery, etc, posed a significant threat to the west.

On top of that, Iraq posed a threat to our allies, having invaded Kuwait and threatened Saudi Arabia in the past. While it didn't post an immediate threat to them in 2002/3, that could certainly change. Nobody was doing anything about it except for the US. Iraq was a destablizing force. But this is just background data.

Was all of this, taken on the whole, enough to justify the 2003 invasion? Sure. But was it a *good idea* to invade Iraq? In my opinion, no. We underestimated our position on the world political stage, and now we're paying too high a price. Had we refrained, we would have been able to continue to play the "moral high ground" card, and possibly affect more long-term change on the region than we are able to do now. Even worse, the war has further destablized the region and failed to unify world opinion (and even come close to unifing it against us).

So in that sense you and I are on the same page, but there is, I think, a vast difference in motivating influences.

why is it that the americans are trying to kill this great man, he has united the diffent faiths of iraq tht have been at war for hundreds of years, he has crushed random terrorist acts, and the people have a leader that they want

why is it that the americans are too blind to see that merely giving this man a seat in iraqs government will stop these unnecessary deaths.

they are going about this all wrong; the people have chosen their leader and are so loyal to him that they will follow him to the death. so what if he is not the governmont america chose, is he not doing what they wanted a new government to do: unite the people without oppression.

im really pissed off about americas stance on this man, would someon please tell me what awericas reasoning is

It might have something to do with the fact that he is a lying slease ball. He also killed political opponents, not a good resume for having him hold power in the nuew government.

2 -3 thousand followers is not sufficient to have his lying ass part of the system. He has killed, encouraged killing and has gone back on agreements he himself advanced.

He is a lying imbecile. He and his followers should be irradicated for the benefit of humankind.

in motivating influences.[/QUOTE]



Hello,

Iraq was harboring terrorists,


Well the problem with this is that they(the terrorists) were mainly in the "no fly zone"(kurdish regions) which Sadaam couldnt have done anything about even if he tried


On top of that, Iraq posed a threat to our allies, having invaded Kuwait and threatened Saudi Arabia in the past


Iraq and Kuwait's problems are historic(also thanks to the west creating Kuwait out of Iraqi land) and Sadaam threatening Arabia was a myth with fake satelite(sp?) footage of the Republican Guard massed on the Kuwait-Saudi border


ignoring international sanctions through smuggling, bribery, etc, posed a significant threat to the west.


How about Israel giving the finger to the UN? they have nukes to right? they have refused to let inspectors into their Nuclear sites if ignoring international law is grounds for an illegal invasion then the middle east has a right not to make peace with Israel

I'm not so concerned about whether a higher up in the administration is a "zionist sympathizer" as I am about whether they're looking out for the best interests of the US.

Are they? It really depends on how you define the US? What is the US, is it a country of 290 million people, or is it corporate America. Whose interests are on the line here? Were Americans ever threatened by Saddam, the simple answer is no. Why do most American’s hate Saddam? No real reason. What is a “American interest” is the real question, the people or the money?

Here's another: Iraq was harboring terrorists,

Oh really where? Are we talking about Ansar-Al-Islam that was under the direct control of the Kurds (your allies) and under the protection of the No Fly Zones? Sorry that B.S doesn’t fly here…

had a track record of WMD weaponry and evidence (erroneous though it was) that more was in place and/or under development.

As do 50 other states in the world that all have the “capability” to develop WMD, why aren’t we invading those states? Because the non-sense about WMD was a argument that all members of the cabinet could agree on. Does anyone actually believe this war about WMD? Seriously? If the US was so concerned about the WMD why didn’t she allow the inspectors finish their work? Because this was not about WMD, it was about interests.

Those two factors along with ignoring international sanctions through smuggling, bribery, etc, posed a significant threat to the west.

In some way shape or form, sorry but your argument is based on nothing more then conjecture, not fact.

On top of that, Iraq posed a threat to our allies, having invaded Kuwait and threatened Saudi Arabia in the past. While it didn't post an immediate threat to them in 2002/3, that could certainly change.

If so why did Saudi Arabia not support an invasion, or Turkey, or Syria, or Jordan? If Iraq was such a threat as you claim it was then these actions make no sense at all. No state asked for the US to invade Iraq, it was not like these states felt threatened by Iraq.

Iraq was a destablizing force.

In 1991 sure…this is 2004 13 years too late.

So in that sense you and I are on the same page, but there is, I think, a vast difference in motivating influences.

The problem is that actually believe the official stance of these governments, stances that can easily prove fallacious.

I'm not so concerned about whether a higher up in the administration is a "zionist sympathizer" as I am about whether they're looking out for the best interests of the US.

Are they? It really depends on how you define the US? What is the US, is it a country of 290 million people, or is it corporate America. Whose interests are on the line here?

Very good questions, and cause for a lot of concern on my part as well. I guess the difference between us being that you seem to see it as more of a conclusion and I see it as more of a potential problem.


Iraq was harboring terrorists,

Oh really where? Are we talking about Ansar-Al-Islam that was under the direct control of the Kurds (your allies) and under the protection of the No Fly Zones? Sorry that B.S doesn’t fly here…

Well the Achille Lauro guy was living in Baghdad, remember. You can't tell me they didn't know about that. Tons of actual, living/breathing terrorists were rounded up during the invasion. What's "BS" is to think they were just hanging out there because they liked the weather. ;-)


As do 50 other states in the world that all have the “capability” to develop WMD, why aren’t we invading those states?

There you go making two wrongs a right again. The answer to your question is that if they become a problem then the world may have to deal with them as well, and if you don't like it, too bad. Build your own first-world power and we'll talk. But the justifications for war with Iraq were more than just WMDs.

Iran presently meets the collective moral/ethical (though not yet legal) criteria for invasion (albeit thanks to US intervention in Iraq; sadly Iran has chosen its path poorly).

But we're a little busy right now. Can you take care of them for us, please? Thanks.


In some way shape or form, sorry but your argument is based on nothing more then conjecture, not fact.

(Talking about the corruption charges ala "oil for food" program.)

In the sense that the accusations haven't been proven in court yet, sure, but the courts in question are run by the very same body accused of corruption, so I think we all know how that's going to go. The body of evidence proving corruption in the oil for food program not only meet the test of evidence in any western court, they meet the test of conviction.

You might as well tell me about OJ's efforts to find the real killers. It'd be more believable. Or the faking of the 9/11 crashes. (Oh wait, you're already doing that.) ;-)


The problem is that actually believe the official stance of these governments, stances that can easily prove fallacious.

So you believe the Iraqi Information Minister but not George W. Bush. Okay, that's a perfectly reasonable position, but it also precludes you from objective assessment of the truth. (shrug) Nothing wrong with opinions, of course.

Terrorists captured in Iraq as a direct result of the war:
- Abu Abbas (Palestinian Liberation Front, Achille Lauro hijacking/murder)
- Several of Abbas' PLF associates
- Iranian terrorists trying to desetablize Iraq under US occpuation and promote a religious government in the new Iraq
- Syrian terrorists doing roughly the same thing
- At least one major Al Qaeda leader; possibly more

And of course Zarqawi and others haven't been captured yet, but are obviously there.

Well the Achille Lauro guy was living in Baghdad, remember.

Wasn’t he killed before the war even started?

. Tons of actual, living/breathing terrorists were rounded up during the invasion.

Tons more in Pakistan, like OBL, tons more in Saudi Arabia, tons more in virtually every Arab/Muslim state. I would venture to say that Iraq compared to other states had one of the smallest amount of terrorists.

What's "BS" is to think they were just hanging out there because they liked the weather.

This argument you presented is B.S because Abu Abass (I don’t know how to spell his name) was not a active terrorist by 2004, and the terrorist connection was said to be one of Al Qaeda not Abu’s terrorist organization. Yes Al Q was in Iraq, but in Kurdistan not Baghdad.

There you go making two wrongs a right again.

Don’t try to discount my argument, because its valid. The US said that Iraq had stockpiles of WMD, not the capability, not the intent, no she had WMD stockpiles. It is Bush who continually is changing the justification from WMD stock piles, to capability, then to terrorism, then to saving the Iraqi people from themselves, etc. It’s all B.S.

The answer to your question is that if they become a problem then the world may have to deal with them as well, and if you don't like it, too bad.

Surely many states were of great WMD concern then Iraq, was Iraq an immanent threat to anyone in 2003? No, and no amount of conjecture, rhetoric, and appealing to emotion fallacies are going to prove otherwise.

But the justifications for war with Iraq were more than just WMDs.

Exactly, that’s why this WMD was crap the war in Iraq was done for more “concrete reasons”.

Iran presently meets the collective moral/ethical (though not yet legal) criteria for invasion (albeit thanks to US intervention in Iraq; sadly Iran has chosen its path poorly).

Firstly Iran won’t be invaded, even if the US didn’t invade Iraq. Secondly an attack on Iran would simply destroy any ambition the US has in the Middle East forever. Sadly for America she went against the wrong target…

(Talking about the corruption charges ala "oil for food" program.)

Oh those charges are from the ever so reliable Chalabi…we cannot bring that up until there is a final assessment of the honesty of the charges.

Or the faking of the 9/11 crashes. (Oh wait, you're already doing that.) ;-)

I don’t recall saying the crashes were fake, they happened. The only question is what hit the Pentagon.

So you believe the Iraqi Information Minister but not George W. Bush.

Please take your words out of my mouth please; they leave an aftertaste of Bull Shit like they are. I believe in logic, not indoctrination. I can’t say the same thing for you little one.

Okay, that's a perfectly reasonable position, but it also precludes you from objective assessment of the truth. (shrug) Nothing wrong with opinions, of course.

Ditto child, I don’t GWB with any more respect then the Iraqi information minister, frankly neither do most Americans or the world. You are the indoctrinated one on this one, not me. You are nothing more then part of the sheeple who took the US gov’t for its word without investigating yourself. Goebells would have loved yah!

Terrorists captured in Iraq as a direct result of the war:
- Abu Abbas (Palestinian Liberation Front, Achille Lauro hijacking/murder)
- Several of Abbas' PLF associates

These two are the only two that Saddam could have done something about. Iran and Syria happened after the war proving it created more problems, and Zarqawi was in your great allied friend Kurdistan.

Tons more in Pakistan, like OBL, tons more in Saudi Arabia, tons more in virtually every Arab/Muslim state. I would venture to say that Iraq compared to other states had one of the smallest amount of terrorists.


Of course. But now they'll (eventually) have one less place to go.



This argument you presented is B.S because Abu Abass (I don’t know how to spell his name) was not a active terrorist by 2004, and the terrorist connection was said to be one of Al Qaeda not Abu’s terrorist organization. Yes Al Q was in Iraq, but in Kurdistan not Baghdad.

I disagree. Even in international law there is no statute of limitations on murder. Iraq was harboring terrorists.

It wasn't just past guys either. We know for a fact (9/11 Commission report; Bob Woodard's books; Richard Clarke's books; etc etc etc) that Iraq was following an agenda of state-sponsored terrorism. Money, training camps, identification, weapons, intelligence, whatever they wanted short of direct, spoken involvement.

Imminent threat? Perhaps not. Threat? Absolutely.


There you go making two wrongs a right again.

Don’t try to discount my argument, because its valid. The US said that Iraq had stockpiles of WMD, not the capability, not the intent, no she had WMD stockpiles. It is Bush who continually is changing the justification from WMD stock piles, to capability, then to terrorism, then to saving the Iraqi people from themselves, etc.

That's correct, and the US intelligence sources were wrong. Stuff happens. John Kerry says, knowing what he knows now, he would have gone anyway. (shrug)

I agree that justifications were changed in the public perception arena. That and the fact that the intelligence was wrong are valid criticisms that call out for change and improvement. They do not (imo) call for radical condemnations of American foreign policy, or even change of government in November.

(Just stating my opinion here, of course. One thing that has changed in my view this year is that I no longer view Kerry supporters as groundless or baseless in their assessments. I now believe there are perfectly valid and demonstrable reasons for voting for John Kerry. This just happens to not be one of them. But that's another subject; I'm just throwing it out there so the casual passersy-by won't casually tag me as a Bush partisan or right-wing ideologue.)



Firstly Iran won’t be invaded, even if the US didn’t invade Iraq. Secondly an attack on Iran would simply destroy any ambition the US has in the Middle East forever. Sadly for America she went against the wrong target…

Right. So how about the rest of you guys taking care of them for us, eh? :-)

Oh yeah, I forgot. None of you other countries have any military capability whatsoever (or the balls to use it). Yeah, that does put a damper on things. Oh well, I guess we'll have to do it for you. Again. At our own expense. (sigh)


Oh those charges are from the ever so reliable Chalabi…we cannot bring that up until there is a final assessment of the honesty of the charges.

Actually his input is trivial at this point, since other testimony and direct, physical evidence now exists, such as internal UN communications, etc. (shrug)

Of course. But now they'll (eventually) have one less place to go.

I will ignore this comment…because that is the sickest and lowest excuse to execute a war. It’s like a Nazi in WWII saying well we have to invade Russia; it’s one less place the Jews can go.

I disagree. Even in international law there is no statute of limitations on murder. Iraq was harboring terrorists.

But the administration did not assert anything about Abu, their justification for going in was no terrorism, that was justification after the failure of the WMD stockpiles (the order of lies). Sorry but that argument still doesn’t fly, that’s revisionist and innately incorrect.

We know for a fact (9/11 Commission report; Bob Woodard's books; Richard Clarke's books; etc etc etc) that Iraq was following an agenda of state-sponsored terrorism. Money, training camps, identification, weapons, intelligence, whatever they wanted short of direct, spoken involvement.

For who?

Imminent threat? Perhaps not. Threat? Absolutely.

Thus by your admission the administrations assertions of a imminent threat was a lie, and incorrect. Yet prior to this moment you probably didn’t even question that assertion by the government.

They do not (imo) call for radical condemnations of American foreign policy, or even change of government in November.

So invading a nation of fabrications, half-truths, suspicion, illegally invading a sovereign state, and defying the will of the international community is not enough to condemn the US, you sound more like Saddam then I though previously. Sorry but you are a ideologue of nationalist proportions.

Right. So how about the rest of you guys taking care of them for us, eh? :-)

The Europeans were successful in getting the IAEA in Iran without firing a shot. No one in the world is going to touch Iran, no one is that stupid.

Oh yeah, I forgot. None of you other countries have any military capability whatsoever (or the balls to use it). Yeah, that does put a damper on things. Oh well, I guess we'll have to do it for you. Again. At our own expense. (sigh)

You won’t do it…trust me you won’t.

Actually his input is trivial at this point, since other testimony and direct, physical evidence now exists, such as internal UN communications, etc. (shrug)

I still hold out suspicion until a formal inquiry is done, I thought here in the West you were innocent until proven guilty. I guess that Saddam mentality has invaded your brain more then I had previously thought!

Of course. But now they'll (eventually) have one less place to go.

I will ignore this comment... because that is the sickest and lowest excuse to execute a war. It’s like a Nazi in WWII saying well we have to invade Russia; it’s one less place the Jews can go.

I didn't use that point as a singular justification for war. On its own, I would agree that that would be a poor justification for war.



I disagree. Even in international law there is no statute of limitations on murder. Iraq was harboring terrorists.

But the administration did not assert anything about Abu, their justification for going in was no terrorism, that was justification after the failure of the WMD stockpiles (the order of lies). Sorry but that argument still doesn’t fly, that’s revisionist and innately incorrect.


I don't know what you mean by "innately incorrect". It's certainly not revisionist to say that terrorists were captured in Iraq. I agree that it's not a justfication for war, in fact it was not a stated justification for war. I listed it above as a hindsight analysis, not a pre-war justification. Part of my asessment that the war was justified (even if it was a bad idea).

As far as I know, the administration did not use "harboring terrorists" as a justification for war. But it's possible they did, in which case they were wrong to do so. Abu Abbas was known to live there, but I certainly agree that that's not a valid justification for war.


We know for a fact (9/11 Commission report; Bob Woodard's books; Richard Clarke's books; etc etc etc) that Iraq was following an agenda of state-sponsored terrorism. Money, training camps, identification, weapons, intelligence, whatever they wanted short of direct, spoken involvement.

For who?

Al-Qaeda. Maybe others, I don't know. Perhaps Hammas, etc.



Imminent threat? Perhaps not. Threat? Absolutely.

Thus by your admission the administrations assertions of a imminent threat was a lie, and incorrect.

No, that's not a correct assessment of my opinion on the subject. I've seen no evidence of lie, so I refrain from calling it such. WMDs were not found, so that was clearly at least a mistake, but the fact that Richard Clarke, Bob Woodward and John Kerry all agree it was just a mistake certainly points to error, not fabrication. That makes the "lie" claim a left-wing, partisan, ideological argument, and quite dismissable. As such, I dismiss it.

And again, my view is that the real mistake was political, not ethical/moral/legal. Plenty of justification exists, even aside from WMDs, but we still should not have gone. There was no *imminent* threat, and by going we've lost the moral high ground, etc.



They do not (imo) call for radical condemnations of American foreign policy, or even change of government in November.

So invading a nation of fabrications, half-truths, suspicion, illegally invading a sovereign state, and defying the will of the international community is not enough to condemn the US, you sound more like Saddam then I though previously. Sorry but you are a ideologue of nationalist proportions.


Just to clarify, I said "American foreign policy", meaning a general condemnation. I don't think that's appropriate, but I don't have a problem with people in other nations condemning the war based on their principles. More power to 'em. I also note that many around the world do not condemn all American foreign policy, just specific policies. Good for them. Extremism is what I disagree with. I've found most people in other parts of the world to be quite reasonable about these issues, including friends I have in Britain, France and Italy. It's really only on the discussion boards that you see the careless, extremist, grotesque generalizations like the one above being tossed about.



The Europeans were successful in getting the IAEA in Iran without firing a shot. No one in the world is going to touch Iran, no one is that stupid.

"Never chain Tehran!" Let's get some t-shirts made up! :-)


You won’t do it... trust me you won’t.

Not now. Later...? (shrug) Depends on them, really.



Actually his input is trivial at this point, since other testimony and direct, physical evidence now exists, such as internal UN communications, etc. (shrug)

I still hold out suspicion until a formal inquiry is done, I thought here in the West you were innocent until proven guilty. I guess that Saddam mentality has invaded your brain more then I had previously thought!

Come now, be honest: You'll hold out suspicion long after an inquiry finds the UN guilty. Unless it names the Bush administration as the guilty party somehow, in which case you'll be all over it. ;-)

why is it that the americans are trying to kill this great man, he has united the diffent faiths of iraq tht have been at war for hundreds of years, he has crushed random terrorist acts, and the people have a leader that they want

why is it that the americans are too blind to see that merely giving this man a seat in iraqs government will stop these unnecessary deaths.

they are going about this all wrong; the people have chosen their leader and are so loyal to him that they will follow him to the death. so what if he is not the governmont america chose, is he not doing what they wanted a new government to do: unite the people without oppression.

im really pissed off about americas stance on this man, would someon please tell me what awericas reasoning is

alsadir if a fucking stupid. getting his own people killed and hiding like a coward in the shrines. Where the hell do you get ur ideas from?

alsadir if a fucking stupid.

Yup stupid enough to hold off the US armed forces for a year and discredit the not so democratically installed government of Iraq by building a well armed militia right under their noses!
How stupid is that?

getting his own people killed and hiding like a coward in the shrines.

Change the word "shrines" to the word "Whitehouse" and the sentence still carries a ring of truth!

Where the hell do you get ur ideas from?

From you :)

Amazing!
Dee Cee

I agree with Machiavelli it is nice if the people respect you but whenever you're in doubt about whether an enemy should respect or fear you, always choose fear." They have always hated us and will always hate us because we represent the opposite of everything that the extremist stand for. We are secular freedom loving and self indulgent. They are religiously intolerant obedient to their mullahs and Spartan in their lifestyles weather through choice or necessity. If we cannot coexist I choose us over them. If you bring the fight to my door do not complain when I return the favor. Terrorist have said they will do whatever is necessary to accomplish their goals. Americans have their own dark history that we can look back on for experience in dealing with this kind of problem.

Sorry about the wait...

I didn't use that point as a singular justification for war. On its own, I would agree that that would be a poor justification for war.

The point is that this was not the point for war at all, the point for war in Iraq was WMD stockpiles. Not capability, not some perceived future threat, not the odd terrorist who lives in Iraq, not Al Q in Kurdish controlled territory. No the official justification was WMD and WMD alone.

I don't know what you mean by "innately incorrect". It's certainly not revisionist to say that terrorists were captured in Iraq. I agree that it's not a justfication for war, in fact it was not a stated justification for war.

The reason why I am calling you a revisionist is because you are changing history, you are stating irrelevancies. So what if there were some terrorists that no longer had a terrorist organization anymore living in Baghdad. You are changing the subject from WMD and trying to justifiy the invasion of Iraq by pointing to this is basically your straw man, trying to divert not only this conversation but your belief in the “just” war in Iraq.

but I certainly agree that that's not a valid justification for war.

So then why use it in this conversation? Could be because you are being a revisionist? Me thinks so.

Al-Qaeda. Maybe others, I don't know. Perhaps Hammas, etc.

Ahh…so I see we are appealing to authority for your arguments. I figured that you don’t investigate the assertions made by “authority” figures. Perhaps…is not an answer for me, and frankly its scary for me to think American voters are even worse!

No, that's not a correct assessment of my opinion on the subject. I've seen no evidence of lie, so I refrain from calling it such.

The 16 word bit about Niger is an example of a man who sexed up false intelligence. Even before the state of the union the CIA stated that the Niger connection is dubious at best. This shows the complicity of the administration to find anything even falsified documents to justify their erroneous claims.

That makes the "lie" claim a left-wing, partisan, ideological argument, and quite dismissable. As such, I dismiss it.

Perhaps…

And again, my view is that the real mistake was political, not ethical/moral/legal. Plenty of justification exists, even aside from WMDs, but we still should not have gone. There was no *imminent* threat, and by going we've lost the moral high ground, etc.

Actually the US did not have the moral high ground, as evidenced by the supreme moral authorities on Earth. The Catholic church provided that justification that such an invasion was immoral, it did not fit Thomas Aquinas’ moral justifications for war, and the Catholic Church was vehemently against this illegal war in Iraq.

I also note that many around the world do not condemn all American foreign policy, just specific policies. Good for them. Extremism is what I disagree with… It's really only on the discussion boards that you see the careless, extremist, grotesque generalizations like the one above being tossed about.
.

I don’t see anything wrong with my statements; your Iraq policy is eerily reminiscent of Saddam’s policy about Kuwait. Both of you disregarded international law, both of you basically invaded on trumped up charges, and both of you violated sovereignty of a state without any real international support. What here did I say that is factually incorrect.

"Never chain Tehran!" Let's get some t-shirts made up! :-)

The only way we are going to get Iran to stop building her nuclear weapons is if we engage in real diplomacy to get the Middle East to be a WMD free zone.

Not now. Later...? (shrug) Depends on them, really.

Its not even a serious option, no one even utters about an Iranian invasion, it would be the hardest invasion by the US military post-WWII. There is very little the US can do against Iran.

Come now, be honest

I’ll be honest, stop speaking for me because it’s really pissing me off. :D

Sorry about the wait...

I didn't use that point as a singular justification for war. On its own, I would agree that that would be a poor justification for war.

The point is that this was not the point for war at all, the point for war in Iraq was WMD stockpiles. Not capability, not some perceived future threat, not the odd terrorist who lives in Iraq, not Al Q in Kurdish controlled territory. No the official justification was WMD and WMD alone.

I don't know what you mean by "innately incorrect". It's certainly not revisionist to say that terrorists were captured in Iraq. I agree that it's not a justfication for war, in fact it was not a stated justification for war.

The reason why I am calling you a revisionist is because you are changing history, you are stating irrelevancies. So what if there were some terrorists that no longer had a terrorist organization anymore living in Baghdad. You are changing the subject from WMD and trying to justifiy the invasion of Iraq by pointing to this is basically your straw man, trying to divert not only this conversation but your belief in the “just” war in Iraq.

but I certainly agree that that's not a valid justification for war.

So then why use it in this conversation? Could be because you are being a revisionist? Me thinks so.

Al-Qaeda. Maybe others, I don't know. Perhaps Hammas, etc.

Ahh…so I see we are appealing to authority for your arguments. I figured that you don’t investigate the assertions made by “authority” figures. Perhaps…is not an answer for me, and frankly its scary for me to think American voters are even worse!

No, that's not a correct assessment of my opinion on the subject. I've seen no evidence of lie, so I refrain from calling it such.

The 16 word bit about Niger is an example of a man who sexed up false intelligence. Even before the state of the union the CIA stated that the Niger connection is dubious at best. This shows the complicity of the administration to find anything even falsified documents to justify their erroneous claims.

That makes the "lie" claim a left-wing, partisan, ideological argument, and quite dismissable. As such, I dismiss it.



And again, my view is that the real mistake was political, not ethical/moral/legal. Plenty of justification exists, even aside from WMDs, but we still should not have gone. There was no *imminent* threat, and by going we've lost the moral high ground, etc.

Actually the US did not have the moral high ground, as evidenced by the supreme moral authorities on Earth. The Catholic church provided that justification that such an invasion was immoral, it did not fit Thomas Aquinas’ moral justifications for war, and the Catholic Church was vehemently against this illegal war in Iraq.

I also note that many around the world do not condemn all American foreign policy, just specific policies. Good for them. Extremism is what I disagree with… It's really only on the discussion boards that you see the careless, extremist, grotesque generalizations like the one above being tossed about.
.

I don’t see anything wrong with my statements; your Iraq policy is eerily reminiscent of Saddam’s policy about Kuwait. Both of you disregarded international law, both of you basically invaded on trumped up charges, and both of you violated sovereignty of a state without any real international support. What here did I say that is factually incorrect.

"Never chain Tehran!" Let's get some t-shirts made up! :-)

The only way we are going to get Iran to stop building her nuclear weapons is if we engage in real diplomacy to get the Middle East to be a WMD free zone.

Not now. Later...? (shrug) Depends on them, really.

Its not even a serious option, no one even utters about an Iranian invasion, it would be the hardest invasion by the US military post-WWII. There is very little the US can do against Iran.

Come now, be honest

I’ll be honest, stop speaking for me because it’s really pissing me off. :D


I for one agree with some of your sentiments. I believe that Bush had it in for Saddam because he had ordered the assination of his dad when he was President. I believe he was looking for any excuse to enter the war and did not want a UN resolution via weapons inspectors. Even though Saddam was resisting the inspections. I believe he did receive falulty intelligence but I also believe he was warned that it was dubious. He choose to make the worst of it rather than be conservative and look deeper because he was in a hurry to make the attack. That is he didn't want Saddam to conceed to the UN.

Having said that I still think the war was justified and I am glad the action was taken. That does not let Bush off the hook for lying or distorting the basis for war.

Even though Saddam was resisting the inspections.

To my knowledge he wasn’t resisting the inspection process before the war.

Having said that I still think the war was justified and I am glad the action was taken. That does not let Bush off the hook for lying or distorting the basis for war.

This sounds a tad schizoid to me…is it just me?

Even though Saddam was resisting the inspections.

To my knowledge he wasn’t resisting the inspection process before the war.

I think its pretty well documented that saddam was evasive for years. Did'nt the inspectors start having problems as soon as they went into iraq in '91?

We are talking about '02-03...;)

but I certainly agree that that's not a valid justification for war.

So then why use it in this conversation? Could be because you are being a revisionist? Me thinks so.

It is not a sole justification for war (IMO). It's a valid contributing factor (IMO). It happens to not be one that was used by the Bush administration; it's merely one I used in hindsight.



Actually the US did not have the moral high ground, as evidenced by the supreme moral authorities on Earth. The Catholic church provided that justification that such an invasion was immoral, it did not fit Thomas Aquinas’ moral justifications for war, and the Catholic Church was vehemently against this illegal war in Iraq.

I think you misunderstood me. What I meant was that we would hold the moral high ground in requiring Iraqi compliance with UN sanctions and resolutions, etc. Hopefully at some point that international pressure would have forced Iraq to comply, and we would have ultimately discovered that the WMDs were not in existence. Then perhaps we could have taken additional steps to ensure that no new programs were put into place.

More importantly, we wouldn't have lost moral position in other areas of global debate and opinion. Such as the high ground we lost when we refused to sign the Kyoto accords, or to join the war tribunal. It seems like just one damn thing after another. But I digress.


The only way we are going to get Iran to stop building her nuclear weapons is if we engage in real diplomacy to get the Middle East to be a WMD free zone.

Right, and now the US can't really play diplomatic cards as effectively on that issue because of the war. Don't you agree?




I don’t see anything wrong with my statements; your Iraq policy is eerily reminiscent of Saddam’s policy about Kuwait. Both of you disregarded international law, both of you basically invaded on trumped up charges, and both of you violated sovereignty of a state without any real international support. What here did I say that is factually incorrect.

17 violations of UN resolution indicates otherwise.

Besides, what "international law"? It's a haphazard arrangement at best, which most of the time nobody can agree on. Calling the Iraq war "illegal" is just parisan rhetoric. Accomplishes nothing.

Broad outline of that official justifications (plural) for war:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1853860.stm

# Iraq continues to flaunt its hostility toward America and to support terror.
# The Iraqi regime has plotted to develop anthrax, and nerve gas, and nuclear weapons for over a decade.
# This is a regime that has already used poison gas to murder thousands of its own citizens, leaving the bodies of mothers huddled over their dead children.
# This is a regime that agreed to international inspections, then kicked out the inspectors. This is a regime that has something to hide from the civilised world.

It is not a sole justification for war (IMO). It's a valid contributing factor (IMO). It happens to not be one that was used by the Bush administration; it's merely one I used in hindsight.

The point is that you are using an irrelevant stance to justify the war; it’s like saying the reason why the US went to go to war with the Nazi’s was because of the Concentration camps. But in reality the US like in Iraq did not attack the camps to stop the deaths, and the US did not attack Ansar Al-Islam to stop the fundamentalists. Sorry but this is not a justification that is merely a figment of your imagination. If the US’ justification was WMD stockpiles, and they don’t exist by simple LOGIC the war was unjustified.

What I meant was that we would hold the moral high ground in requiring Iraqi compliance with UN sanctions and resolutions, etc. Hopefully at some point that international pressure would have forced Iraq to comply, and we would have ultimately discovered that the WMDs were not in existence.

What did u think the weapon inspections were in 2003? Do you think the Inspectors were dancing in Iraq not looking for WMD? The facts were by the UN that they destroyed in excess of 95-98% of Iraq’s WMD in 1998. That alone proved to me that the US provocations pre-war about stockpiles was complete bull shit, but I guess you took it all in like a sheeple masses?

More importantly, we wouldn't have lost moral position in other areas of global debate and opinion. Such as the high ground we lost when we refused to sign the Kyoto accords, or to join the war tribunal. It seems like just one damn thing after another. But I digress.

Indeed it is one thing after another, and you have only yourselves to blame for it.

Right, and now the US can't really play diplomatic cards as effectively on that issue because of the war. Don't you agree?

The US is now in decline as a supreme world power, Iraq was the pinnacle can it only go down from there. From the heights of empire the empire falls…America your time is quickly coming to an end.

17 violations of UN resolution indicates otherwise.

In 1991 he didn’t break any UN resolutions because none were levied against him; I am comparing the US actions and the Iraqi actions of 1990-2004. New argument is needed.

Besides, what "international law"? It's a haphazard arrangement at best, which most of the time nobody can agree on.

Yet you just used that “haphazard” law for your argument, shall I remind you:

17 violations of UN resolution indicates otherwise

This is why I can’t stand Americans sometimes, you use the UN and international law when it fits your petty needs.

Calling the Iraq war "illegal" is just parisan rhetoric. Accomplishes nothing.

It’s a fact…you are an uber ideologue, because this transcends mere American politics.

and by the way people sum facts that ive noiced your getting wrong:

34. Q: Did Saddam order the inspectors out of Iraq?

A:No

35. Q: How many inspections were there in November and December 1998?

A:300

36. Q: How many of these inspections had problems?

A:5

37. Q: Were the weapons inspectors allowed entry to the Ba'ath Party HQ?

A: Yes

but then ask yourself how many nukes has Israel got? it is estimated over 400. how many insoections hagve they let - 0!! are the UN having problems in Israel well apart from UN workers being shot by Israel, their conviys destroyed and Israel defying more UN resoloutiuons then and other country in the world, yes they are having a few problems

and then askyourself how much money has Israel recieved from the US - $83,000,000,00 (83 billion)!!


1. yes Sadam used a bit of chemical gas on the Kurds, weaopns that were supplied by America, Britain, etc. and are we forgetting that America dropped 17 MILLION gallons of Agent Orange in Vietnam and ROUTINELY uses banned and illgal weapons. and when sadam did use these weapons and killed 5,000 people, no western countries condemmed it.

2. Yes Sadam attackd Iran, with the support of the US, Britain etc. and whats even more hypocritical of America that in the war it supplied Iraq with weaopns to fight AND Iran with weapons to fight.
ABOVE ARE TWO reason why America fought Iraq. well actually there are just excises, after it is emerged that the whole original reasons such as WMD, 9/11 were all fake. but anywayt these 2 reasons are still bullshit as America contributed to them in the first place.

yes Iraq has broken 17 resoloutions but then again Israel has broken over 100 and has been vettoed by America many many times (by 1992 it was over 30)

America disbaled 80% of the Iraqi army in the Gulf War and they new Sadams army was weak and posed no threat and thats why they were so confident in attacking

38. Q: Who said that by December 1998, "Iraq had in fact, been disarmed to
a level unprecedented in modern history."

A: Scott Ritter, UNSCOM chief.

and by the way Sadr does not kill his opponents he is SUSPECTED of killing some guy but anyway Sadam was already a convicted killer when America payed him money, brought him gifts, gave him weaopns, trained his army etc. America doesn't seem to have a problem with putting Sadams old officials BACK into power either. :rolleyes:

and as for Alawai, dispite killing tens of people already personally, that the media is covering up he is bringing back basically Sadams old law.

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=39572

http://www.islamicity.com/global/images/photo/People/allawi_saddam[130x126].GIF

17 violations of UN resolution indicates otherwise.

In 1991 he didn’t break any UN resolutions because none were levied against him; I am comparing the US actions and the Iraqi actions of 1990-2004. New argument is needed.

No, those are all post-Gulf War.

As for the rest, we're just repeating ourselves now. And you've invoked Godwin's Law, which generally ends my participation in a discussion. Was fun for a while, though. :-)

I'm going to be offline for a few days, unfortunately. I'll try and revise some more history for you when I get back. ;->

We are talking about '02-03...;)

He was still being evasive and intimidating then. All his minions were shitting themselves when they were asked any questions about WMD in front of saddam's henchmen.

If you bring the fight to my door do not complain when I return the favor. [QUOTE]

are messed up in the head or something :confused: America attacked Iraq not the other way around and it was unprovoked.

[QUOTE]
27. Q: Was the U.S and the UK at war with Iraq between December 1998
and September 1999?

A: No

28. Q: How many pounds of explosives were dropped on Iraq between December
1998 and September 1999?

A: 20 million

so who's bring what to whose door?

and DeeCee the whithouse thing is right to0 :D


Terrorist have said they will do whatever is necessary to accomplish their goals.

and Bush says he'll do whatever it will take to bring the world from "darkness to light" ie Islam 2 Christianty




Americans have their own dark history that we can look back on for experience in dealing with this kind of problem.

oh yeah just like America dealt with slaves traders, ethnically cleansing millions, oh wait that was the US!! America does not deal with terrorists, it creates them, trains them, arms them, morally supports them and THEN after there use is finished it labes them terrorist and you know the rest but all the while acts as if it hasnt got anything to do with them.

He was still being evasive and intimidating then. All his minions were shitting themselves when they were asked any questions about WMD in front of saddam's henchmen.


34. Q: Did Saddam order the inspectors out of Iraq?

A:No

35. Q: How many inspections were there in November and December 1998?

A:300

36. Q: How many of these inspections had problems?

A:5

37. Q: Were the weapons inspectors allowed entry to the Ba'ath Party HQ?

A: Yes [/QUOTE]

and they are being shifty :rolleyes: and anyway like i said Israel has killed UN officials, destoryed their convoys has broken more UN resolooutions then anyother country (about 8 TIMES THE AMOUNT IRAQ HAS) and at the end of that America doesnt think Israel is being "SHIFTY" infact is continues to give it money, weapons, support and hs so far given $83 BILLION DOLLARS shifty? :rolleyes:

Israel, the size of a few large cities gets more money then the entire continent of Africa!

He was still being evasive and intimidating then. All his minions were shitting themselves when they were asked any questions about WMD in front of saddam's henchmen.

To the best of my knowledge the inspectors were pretty satisfied with the access they had, and Iraq was co-operating, even destroying Al-Samoud missiles that were in violation of its missile (not WMD) commitments. The inspections weren’t even over by March 2003, but the US not Saddam kicked them out. Thus Saddam was doing what he was supposed to do, and the US couldn’t stand it.

I really think The Onion called it with this news bit:

Saddam Enrages Bush With Full Compliance

WASHINGTON, DC—President Bush expressed frustration and anger Monday over a U.N. report stating that Iraqi president Saddam Hussein is now fully complying with weapons inspections. "Enough is enough," a determined Bush told reporters. "We are not fooled by Saddam's devious attempts to sway world opinion by doing everything the U.N. asked him to do. We will not be intimidated into backing down and, if we have any say in the matter, neither will Saddam." Bush added that any further Iraqi attempt to meet the demands of the U.N. or U.S. will be regarded as "an act of war."

Even though Saddam was resisting the inspections.

To my knowledge he wasn’t resisting the inspection process before the war.

Having said that I still think the war was justified and I am glad the action was taken. That does not let Bush off the hook for lying or distorting the basis for war.

This sounds a tad schizoid to me…is it just me?

Might sound so to you but I suggest you are deliberately turning the other cheek on other evidence.

i.e. - I do believe that there was a case in England where "Ricin" was discovered and it was traced to Iraq. It was in terroists hands. Care to comment?

I do believe that there was a case in England where "Ricin" was discovered and it was traced to Iraq. It was in terroists hands. Care to comment?

Oh we arrest people every week over here Mac. It never seems to come to anything though.

Two members of a radical Islamic group alleged to have planned to use ricin in a chemical weapons attack on a high-profile London target were never charged with terrorist offences. Instead, the brothers involved in the alleged plot, Samir and Mouloud Feddag, were jailed for possessing false passports.

And the famous 'Cyanide on the underground' fable.

Karim Kadouri, who was arrested in November 2002 for allegedly plotting to release poison gas in the London Underground. All terrorism charges against him were dropped, and he was jailed for four months last February for having a fake passport.

The statistics tend to speak for themselves.

Only five of the 529 people arrested in Britain as terrorist suspects since the 9/11 al-Qaeda attacks on New York and Washington in 2001 have been convicted of any terrorist crime...
Baghdad Meziane and Brahim Benmerzouga, from Leicester, were each jailed for 11 years last April after being convicted of raising funds for terrorists.


One of the remaining three was convicted of murdering a policeman during the course of his arrest and I can't find out what the other two were convicted of. If they were full on WMD enabled suicide killers I'm sure it would have been splashed across the media but not a trace is found. :(

To conclude.

'There is massive publicity given to arrests of so-called Islamic terrorists, giving the impression that there are Islamic cells all round the country...
'The vast majority of these are released without any charges, but the damage is already done. Politicians are too quick to make public pronouncements before they have seen the evidence.'

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1101744,00.html

Dee Cee

I do believe that there was a case in England where "Ricin" was discovered and it was traced to Iraq. It was in terroists hands. Care to comment?

Oh we arrest people every week over here Mac. It never seems to come to anything though.

It is difficult to make a case which is primarialy circumstantial. None of which alters the fact that these people had apparently entered your country illegally and were up to no good.

And the famous 'Cyanide on the underground' fable.

Ricin is a far cry from Cyanide. And I see no denial or evidence that it in fact was not traced to Iraq. Like our beloved President (pun intended) has said we best be pro-active than reactive from now on. I do agree with that position. Don't want to get caught in the middle, don't screw around with fake passports and deadly gases, especially if your are arabic or muslim.

The statistics tend to speak for themselves.

Perhaps not enough in jaoil for long enough time but at least they have been disarmed and rendered controllable.

One of the remaining three was convicted of murdering a policeman during the course of his arrest and I can't find out what the other two were convicted of. If they were full on WMD enabled suicide killers I'm sure it would have been splashed across the media but not a trace is found. :(

Sounds like real nice innocent guys to me. :bugeye:

I had a long post typed up in response to some others in here.

But I deleted it all in order to express my pleasure at nico's second banning. (and I am also admittedly spent on the old Iraq War arguments)

Now, I wonder how long it will be until he re-registers under a new name.

Al Sadir is a threat to Iraq's new order.

Thus, for its own survival, Iraq's new order is eliminating Al Sadir, along with requested aid from other countries.

I don't see anything illogical about that.