The Iraq War

[brianm]

to do the points quickly.....

i agree there were writings of a working relationship in the 90s between bin laden in the early 90s. However, much of the information that was dispersed later on in the attempts to critique the invasion, showed that in many ways this relationship was not currently operational on a working level, nor that the iraq fundamental strike capabilities were at present reliable.

Some notable examples in which the US paid for someone else to do our work for us....bin laden against the soviet union, pinochet in the take over of chile from allende, the early stages of vietnam war before we got involved. Frankly if you look at some of the cia databases, i would imagine you would find a large number of declassified reports. The point is these things occur practically all the time, almost all nations engage in intelligence and counterintelligence movements.

I agree with your last paragraph pretty much in whole. However in the case of saddam is been shown that there were many statements made about saddam at the time of the invasion that proved to be exaggerated or falsified (if youd like a quick portal i would suggest the wikipedia page, not the information on the page, but some of the citations are pretty reasonable). Saddam did do bad things and wasnt a great guy...i dont think anyone argues that, but is that enough of a reason to invade, or anymore so that the numbers of other dictators who have done far worse to their people?

I would really like to know where these facts are coming from.....or are you an iraq supporter?

[got tonkaed]

Saddam did do bad things and wasnt a great guy...i dont think anyone argues that, but is that enough of a reason to invade, or anymore so that the numbers of other dictators who have done far worse to their people?

I'm not going to argue with you on every point or else everyone's going to think I'm a nitpicker. But I will say that the difference between Hussein and other bad guys is that there were actual UN agreements signed by his government in which he promised to abide by and that if he didn't the consequence would be to pay the price militarily. He didn't comply and so there was a written legal record to verify that there was a right to go in.

i dont discount that point. However, if we are going to look at legality of invasions, our effort in the invasion of iraq lacked a certain amount of paperwork as well. Frankly the price we have had to pay out of all of this, when other sanctions and measures could have had an effect or would have continued to make him a rather docile threat, seem like better options, both in hindsight and aruging from then.

[CoffeeCream]

if we are going to look at legality of invasions, our effort in the invasion of iraq lacked a certain amount of paperwork as well.

Alright then what is your definition of paperwork that would show there were legal grounds to invade? Something from the UN perhaps?

[got tonkaed]

brian much of the info is just from whatever i could get my hands on over the last few years. some bits led me to support various elements of foreign policy, but most compel me to question.

For the debate at hand, id recommend for background information purposes, the citations related to the 2003 iraqi invasion via wikipedia..the particular article although perhaps slanted, at least posts reasonable links from different contemporary sources. So dont use the article as much as those links.

and i watch some independent media when i can get my hands onit.

[got tonkaed]

if we are going to look at legality of invasions, our effort in the invasion of iraq lacked a certain amount of paperwork as well.

Alright then what is your definition of paperwork that would show there were legal grounds to invade? Something from the UN perhaps?

ill probably have to get back to you tommorow on this, but a resolution that was not as heavily debated as the one we had to start the invasion would have been a start.

[jay_a2j]

Joke of a war? Can you please explain to me how that has anything to do with the topic?

Well, if there were no terrorists who flew planes into buildings or an American government to pay off some Muslims to do it, then its a joke. Millions of people fooled into believing "the big bad terrorists are out to get us". Give me a break. I will be fooled no longer. Now I will sit and watch the sheep defend the indefensible as the government gets what it wanted, an extremely naive population. Thank you patriotic Americans for letting them destroy this country.... now I gotta go pack my bag for FEMA camp...

[brianm]

Joke of a war? Can you please explain to me how that has anything to do with the topic?

Well, if there were no terrorists who flew planes into buildings or an American government to pay off some Muslims to do it, then its a joke. Millions of people fooled into believing "the big bad terrorists are out to get us". Give me a break. I will be fooled no longer. Now I will sit and watch the sheep defend the indefensible as the government gets what it wanted, an extremely naive population. Thank you patriotic Americans for letting them destroy this country.... now I gotta go pack my bag for FEMA camp...

Your 'Sheep' are just that...sheep...You have no facts to base your arguement....like everyone else...

[jay_a2j]

Joke of a war? Can you please explain to me how that has anything to do with the topic?

Well, if there were no terrorists who flew planes into buildings or an American government to pay off some Muslims to do it, then its a joke. Millions of people fooled into believing "the big bad terrorists are out to get us". Give me a break. I will be fooled no longer. Now I will sit and watch the sheep defend the indefensible as the government gets what it wanted, an extremely naive population. Thank you patriotic Americans for letting them destroy this country.... now I gotta go pack my bag for FEMA camp...

Your 'Sheep' are just that...sheep...You have no facts to base your arguement....like everyone else...

FACTS


1. Fire doesn't burn hot enough to melt steel

2. Even if the steel was weakened it should not have fallen at almost free fall speed if encountering lower non-weakened floors.

3. The debris from the towers was quickly shipped OVERSEAS before it could be inspected.

4. Fighter planes stayed grounded after it was obvious we were "under attack"

5. After learning the second plane had hit, Bush sat in the classroom for 30 minutes, not at all afraid that a plane might hit the school.

6. All the video footage of a "plane" hitting the pentagon was confiscated by the FBI within 20 minutes of the "crash". And no conclusive footage was ever released.

7. There was no luggage, seats, bodies or any other evidence that a large plane had crashed at either the Pentagon or the field in Penn.

8. When Bush was asked about "getting Osama Binladen", he replied along the lines of, "We don't know where he is and it isn't a top concern".....6 1/2 years later its STILL not a concern.

9. 3 months after 911 Bush said he watched the first plane hit while sitting outside of the classroom.....funny, no one saw the first plane hit on 9/11 the video of it didn't surface until 9/12.

10. Building 7 was "pulled" on 911....its takes weeks if not months to set explosives to "pull" a building.

11. There is far more evidence that it was an inside job rather than the governments story.




Wake up.

[brianm]

Ah, yet another conspiracy theory....

[jay_a2j]

Ah, yet another conspiracy theory....

Yeah, just ignore it and get back to your kool-aid.

[Jenos Ridan]

I think you eat a third of all the worlds food aswell. What is it with thirds?

Last I heard, we export a little over a quarter of what we make and another quarter goes to waste. Care to guess where the remaining 50% goes?

Quit complaining about food; just because we virtually feed the whole rest of the planet doesn't mean that all of it will get to where it should go.

Wait, China sucks down more oil than the US.

So what do you know?

[Jenos Ridan]

Word-to-those-whomsoever-think-that-they-are-wise: Remember, Saddam Hussein violated 17 (count them, seventeen) UN resolutions. And now that there is a state of unrest in Iraq, the UN still does nothing. Hardly surprising, they've done nothing in the former Yugoslavia either and Milosovich was Europe's Hussein.

I think if the Coalition Nations wish to end this, we should let them do the job they set out to do and let the chips fall as they will. Rushing them won't do anyone any good.

[Jenos Ridan]

Saddam did do bad things and wasnt a great guy...i dont think anyone argues that, but is that enough of a reason to invade, or anymore so that the numbers of other dictators who have done far worse to their people?

I'm not going to argue with you on every point or else everyone's going to think I'm a nitpicker. But I will say that the difference between Hussein and other bad guys is that there were actual UN agreements signed by his government in which he promised to abide by and that if he didn't the consequence would be to pay the price militarily. He didn't comply and so there was a written legal record to verify that there was a right to go in.

The aforementioned UN resolutions, being the big ones there.

Also, didn't he violate a number of international laws when we, oh I don't know, GASSED THE BLEEDIN' KURDS!?!?

Wake up people, he needed to go and 2003 was as good a year as 1991 but no, Bush senior didn't have the guts.

[DaGip]

Word-to-those-whomsoever-think-that-they-are-wise: Remember, Saddam Hussein violated 17 (count them, seventeen) UN resolutions. And now that there is a state of unrest in Iraq, the UN still does nothing. Hardly surprising, they've done nothing in the former Yugoslavia either and Milosovich was Europe's Hussein.

I think if the Coalition Nations wish to end this, we should let them do the job they set out to do and let the chips fall as they will. Rushing them won't do anyone any good.

This doesn't mean that the United States has to be the policman of the world. You should take a chill pill, sit down and watch this very good video on WHY we are in Iraq. It might open your eyes.

Iraq and the Petro Dollar

[bradleybadly]

Tonka for all your high sounding speeches you really never define where you come down on things. It's just more collegiate bullshit that you've probably bought into from your uppity professors. You've got a damn fine repetoire of words but all I hear you say is blah blah blah. Why don't you come up with something on your own instead of trying to impress us with long winded oratories. You sound like John Kerry, a big sophisticated liberal who says a lot about nothing.

[Napoleon Ier]

Tonka for all your high sounding speeches you really never define where you come down on things. It's just more collegiate bullshit that you've probably bought into from your uppity professors. You've got a damn fine repetoire of words but all I hear you say is blah blah blah. Why don't you come up with something on your own instead of trying to impress us with long winded oratories. You sound like John Kerry, a big sophisticated liberal who says a lot about nothing.

I must agree. Much as I recognise tonakaed's superior intellect, it would be nice if he told us his actual opinion. Whatdya say tonky?

[Carebian Knight]

Ah, yet another conspiracy theory....

Another? This is the same one that xtratabasco was so intent on proving yet never did. I recall jay falling with him as well. This isn't a conspiracy theory thread please don't turn it into one.

[unriggable]

You sound like John Kerry, a big sophisticated liberal who says a lot about nothing.

Constructive. You back up your arguments with lots of evidence. A great debater, if I may say so myself.

“There’s an old…saying in Tennessee…I know it’s in Texas, probably in Tennessee that says Fool me once…(3 second pause)… Shame on…(4 second pause)…Shame on you….(6 second pause)…Fool me…Can’t get fooled again.” –George W. Bush to Nashville, Tennessee audience, Sept. 17, 2002, MSNBC-TV –Politex, Sept. 17, 2002, 10 PM

[unriggable]

Word-to-those-whomsoever-think-that-they-are-wise: Remember, Saddam Hussein violated 17 (count them, seventeen) UN resolutions. And now that there is a state of unrest in Iraq, the UN still does nothing. Hardly surprising, they've done nothing in the former Yugoslavia either and Milosovich was Europe's Hussein.

I think if the Coalition Nations wish to end this, we should let them do the job they set out to do and let the chips fall as they will. Rushing them won't do anyone any good.

How convenient, so has Israel.

[unriggable]

"I guess that just depends on your philosophy of how to react to international terrorism. If appeasement and coexistance is how you think we can get them to stop killing random (and innocent) civilians, then by all means I bet that the Democrats would pursue that plan to the hilt. If on the other hand, you think that like in 2001 when we were not in Iraq or Afghanistan and they STILL killed 3,000 American civilians in one September morning, and that appeasement and coexistance will ENCOURAGE them, then vote for the candidates that are willing to take the fight to the enemy, to win the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, and that seek to kill the terrorists, not negotiate with them (negotiation is a fine tool when dealing with reasonable men, I guess it is a matter of opinion as to whether the terrorists are reasonable men). "

Oh come on. You really think we are only killing terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan? Collateral damage, my friend. Tens of thousands, maybe of hundreds of thousands are dead because we couldn't negotiate with a country that has no connection with the group that caused 9-11. I haven't seen any real reason to justify going in there and killing more of our own than they killed us.

In WW2 some prisons didn't torture their prisoners, they befriended them, played chess with them, they got more information that way than by today's methods.

[luns101]

Tonka for all your high sounding speeches you really never define where you come down on things. It's just more collegiate bullshit that you've probably bought into from your uppity professors. You've got a damn fine repetoire of words but all I hear you say is blah blah blah. Why don't you come up with something on your own instead of trying to impress us with long winded oratories. You sound like John Kerry, a big sophisticated liberal who says a lot about nothing.

There are people who fit that description here but tonka is not one of them. Chill out if you want to be taken seriously.

[brianm]

I give...

It seems that I am talking to teens.....Maybe later

[got tonkaed]

first let me give my thanks to luns for the compliment and defending me. Ill also apologize in advance as it looks my computer situation here at home is going to be a bit spotty so i might not be able to say as much as i would like on some of these issues in the near future.

Now then. I suppose i understand and disagree with some of the charges per say put against me. Unlike many of the people i come across on this forum, i rarely if ever have an opinion that is so set in stone that i feel comfortable making some of the absolutist assertions occasionally made on their behalf. This is not to say im against such assertions (i can already hear the groaning) but i rarely if ever feel such stances are my own. Admittedly i change my mind on issues from time to time, partly because i often come across better arguments and new information but partly because im a pretty falliable guy. However, although some will see this as a flaw i see it as a sign of the ability to grow, individuals who cast themselves in such position i suppose do grant themselves a bit of honor in their steadfastedness, but this isnt without a cost as well.

my current feelings about the iraq war are diffcult to put in summary. I feel that for a variety of reasons a critical observer could look at why it might have made sense to go. I dont feel in many cases these were the reasons we were packaged...since such reasons arent often the fare of the average person. On many levels i think those who wanted to go mistook and misestimated some of the costs of these actions and perhaps failed to package the war in a way that we would realize the longevity of the occupation. I severly question whether or not anyone had a clue what they were doing when they labeled this a war on terror, as that was both on a theorectical and a practical level seemingly not a very intelligent move.

Ill admit im as mystified as any other as to what to do now. Clearly some kind of presence will be needed for stability, but frankly should we be asking if stability is an achieveable or perhaps even a desirable (see some other posts of mine) goal? I do not agree with many elements of our middle eastern foreign policy and believe that it is becoming clearer that the policies of transformational diplomacy are not exactly the best moves for the longevity and prosperty of our nation.

I apologize if this again isnt taking a stance, but part of being that more intelligent than thou charcter that napoleon prescribed me as is that from time to time you wear a mask as nietzsche would say. I dont always do it by choice, but rather because im not good enough at brevity or insight to boil down my thoughts into simplistic positions.

[comic boy]

Saddam did do bad things and wasnt a great guy...i dont think anyone argues that, but is that enough of a reason to invade, or anymore so that the numbers of other dictators who have done far worse to their people?

I'm not going to argue with you on every point or else everyone's going to think I'm a nitpicker. But I will say that the difference between Hussein and other bad guys is that there were actual UN agreements signed by his government in which he promised to abide by and that if he didn't the consequence would be to pay the price militarily. He didn't comply and so there was a written legal record to verify that there was a right to go in.

The aforementioned UN resolutions, being the big ones there.

Also, didn't he violate a number of international laws when we, oh I don't know, GASSED THE BLEEDIN' KURDS!?!?

Wake up people, he needed to go and 2003 was as good a year as 1991 but no, Bush senior didn't have the guts.

One of the problems I have with the situation in Iraq is that few of us know really what the motivation for invasion was,regime change ,terrorism,oil, corporate profits, revenge ? Your point about flouting UN resolutions certainly looks a bit shaky given that Israel has far and away the worst record in that respect, are you suggesting Tel Aviv should have been the first target !