Saddam was attacking our planes and ships as best he could. I lived in SC were pilots were routinely rotated into the Middle East to enforce the no fly zone and I remember several different years were we would watch the news to see if a "local" pilot would be rescued or if the Iraqis would get him.
Addressing one point, regarding the issue of weapons of mass destruction, we have yet to really see any proof, even if they were moved out of the country or destroyed. This is enough to really question the motive of invasion. We can claim that because Saddam obstructed inspections he must have had them, but equally as much could it be likely that he was attempting to intimidate other nations and increase his power despite a lack of weaponry. Additionally, while it seems to make sense that these supposed weapons were moved or destroyed, because it supports the original mission of invasion, it fails to explain why he might do so. More likely, these weapons would have been used for their purpose: Against American soldiers. To ensure that the Americans were wrong would not be his purpose. Then why perform these tasks that are supposed to have happened, by destroying or moving the weapons?
Overall, all I heard when Bush was raising support for his invasion was "9/11, al Qaeda, and WMDs". Catchy phrases that are easy to repeat and need little justification, because they are all scary and evil, but no serious reasons. Then, after these were debunked, all I heard was "freeing Iraqis", which apparently was an afterthought. As a supporter of the theory of political realism, I find that reason hard to believe.
Overall, all I heard when Bush was raising support for his invasion was "9/11, al Qaeda, and WMDs". Catchy phrases that are easy to repeat and need little justification, because they are all scary and evil, but no serious reasons. Then, after these were debunked, all I heard was "freeing Iraqis", which apparently was an afterthought. As a supporter of the theory of political realism, I find that reason hard to believe.
WHat we did was fine, until the part after saddams capture. You know the part, where we stayed there.
And if we were someone else I'd say they're good reasons, hell, at one point I did. But I was wrong. It's not our way to go stick our nose in other people's business, or at least it wasn't. Besides, if those reasons are true, why didn't we start with the Sudan, or North Korea, or dare I say China?fadedsteve wrote:
The answer to that question is no, we werent in any "imminent" danger from Iraq. . . . I was mearly listing the reasons why the US decided to go to war with Saddam. Some people on these forums dont know why we went there in the first place! Just a refresher if you will. . . . .Kmarion wrote:
Was Iraq an immediate imminent threat to the United States? That is the only question that needs to be asked. Those things are bad, but our Constitution only allows us to go to war if we are in immediate danger.
You know, none of that means anything. None of it. Because if it did, Kim Jong Il would be gone, Ahmedinijad would be gone, Arafat would have been gone, Castro would have been gone, the warlords in Sudan, Nigeria, and Somalia would be gone, but yet they are not. Only Saddam, and even after he has been captured, tried, convicted, killed, we remain.fadedsteve wrote:
....mindless neo-con propaganda drizzle...
Preventive war is not a sound state of diplomacy or foreign relation. In the end, it always results in your failure. You willingness to not......jee, I don't know....accept facts and your blatant disregard for logic and reason are quite startling.
Well then it wouldn't be classified as a threat anymore if he did would it?Kmarion wrote:
Saddam was attacking our ships in the gulf?usmarine2005 wrote:
Did we have troops stationed in Saudi? Ships in the gulf?Kmarion wrote:
Was Iraq an immediate imminent threat to the United States? That is the only question that needs to be asked. Those things are bad, but our Constitution only allows us to go to war if we are in immediate danger.
A threat does not imply it was imminent to someone in Iowa.
Last edited by usmarine2005 (2007-06-18 18:47:11)
For your information...the bulk of chemical weapons came from France...not the United Stats.m3thod wrote:
Yeah back in 1988 when he was gassing his people! Where the fuck where you people then? Oh, that right selling him the damn fucking things.fadedsteve wrote:
The case for war was legit!! The timing is what wasnt wise on the part of the Bush administration. . . .m3thod wrote:
You 'reasons' wasn't the ones presented by your neo cons overlords.
Digging around for more just weakens your pathetic case further.
You bollox'ed up just admit it.
I'm fairly certain you type things just to see them up on the screen.m3thod wrote:
Yeah back in 1988 when he was gassing his people! Where the fuck where you people then? Oh, that right selling him the damn fucking things.fadedsteve wrote:
The case for war was legit!! The timing is what wasnt wise on the part of the Bush administration. . . .m3thod wrote:
You 'reasons' wasn't the ones presented by your neo cons overlords.
Digging around for more just weakens your pathetic case further.
You bollox'ed up just admit it.
geNius wrote:
I'm fairly certain you type things just to see them up on the screen.m3thod wrote:
Yeah back in 1988 when he was gassing his people! Where the fuck where you people then? Oh, that right selling him the damn fucking things.fadedsteve wrote:
The case for war was legit!! The timing is what wasnt wise on the part of the Bush administration. . . .
You bollox'ed up just admit it.
There is no point in kidding our self. US and the UN went to war for one reason: Oil.
I`m by no means a conspiracy buff, but watch Syriana if you want to get a glimpse of US foreign policy.
I`m by no means a conspiracy buff, but watch Syriana if you want to get a glimpse of US foreign policy.
Just in case someone didn't see a school from the inside:fadedsteve wrote:
Germany and Japan were imminent threats the entire time!!Kmarion wrote:
Japan wasn't an imminent threat?Superslim wrote:
Germany wasn't an imminent threat either and neither was Japan after their pacific fleet got wiped. But, given time, they would have been.
Japan ATTACKED the US
Germany DECLARED WAR on the US
so this discussion is futile
Hey I saw that episode! I think it was the same one where Michael Moore stepped on a rake and it hit him in the face. Man, was that funny.mr. LuxusLexus wrote:
There is no point in kidding our self. US and the UN went to war for one reason: Oil.
I`m by no means a conspiracy buff, but watch Syriana if you want to get a glimpse of US foreign policy.
Oh by all means...go see a hollywood movie. Hollywood doesnt lie, nor does it stretch the truth. Yes, our foreign policy is all written down for everyone to see in movies, cant go wrong there. Oh..better run...King Kong is in my backyard....these damn hollywood movies are too real.mr. LuxusLexus wrote:
There is no point in kidding our self. US and the UN went to war for one reason: Oil.
I`m by no means a conspiracy buff, but watch Syriana if you want to get a glimpse of US foreign policy.
Once and for all. Oil is not why we went to war. We do not touch Iraqi oil and there are tons of people making sure of this. In fact, if oil is what we are benefitting, then the gas pumps sure dont show it-gas is twice as high since the war started. Taking all that oil sure improved our prices and reserves...NOT!!!....LOL. Good God.
The were a daily threat to US and British planes enforcing the No-fly zone.Kmarion wrote:
Was Iraq an immediate imminent threat to the United States? That is the only question that needs to be asked. Those things are bad, but our Constitution only allows us to go to war if we are in immediate danger.
They did shoot once and a while also.........breaking the cease fire technically. But we can leave that one for the UN.CC-Marley wrote:
The were a daily threat to US and British planes enforcing the No-fly zone.Kmarion wrote:
Was Iraq an immediate imminent threat to the United States? That is the only question that needs to be asked. Those things are bad, but our Constitution only allows us to go to war if we are in immediate danger.
I love it when people compare Iraq to Nazi Germany.
Nazi Germany = one of the most powerful empires in history. Invaded almost all of Europe, Northern Africa, and the Middle East. Took 6 years to finally bring them to their knees. (After, uh, tens of millions of deaths)
Iraq = Invaded Kuwait. Toppled in 3 weeks 12 years later.
I'm not saying Iraq wasn't a problem, but please. You're insulting the vets of WW2 by comparing Hussein to Hitler, in my view.
Nazi Germany = one of the most powerful empires in history. Invaded almost all of Europe, Northern Africa, and the Middle East. Took 6 years to finally bring them to their knees. (After, uh, tens of millions of deaths)
Iraq = Invaded Kuwait. Toppled in 3 weeks 12 years later.
I'm not saying Iraq wasn't a problem, but please. You're insulting the vets of WW2 by comparing Hussein to Hitler, in my view.
No one's comparing Nazi Germany to Iraq, but how are Saddam and Adolf different from one another as leaders?Spearhead wrote:
I love it when people compare Iraq to Nazi Germany.
Nazi Germany = one of the most powerful empires in history. Invaded almost all of Europe, Northern Africa, and the Middle East. Took 6 years to finally bring them to their knees. (After, uh, tens of millions of deaths)
Iraq = Invaded Kuwait. Toppled in 3 weeks 12 years later.
I'm not saying Iraq wasn't a problem, but please. You're insulting the vets of WW2 by comparing Hussein to Hitler, in my view.
/Yawn, a plane or any number of planes does not constitute "The United States". Kmarion is absolutely correct in his assertion that though some of those reasons may have been seen by some people as legitimate threats, the war was launched without an immediate and proven threat existing.CC-Marley wrote:
The were a daily threat to US and British planes enforcing the No-fly zone.Kmarion wrote:
Was Iraq an immediate imminent threat to the United States? That is the only question that needs to be asked. Those things are bad, but our Constitution only allows us to go to war if we are in immediate danger.
If a cop lies and says your taillight is out, then finds out you have an outstanding warrant for 12 years, you should still go down.
By your logic hasn't Israel had a warrant for almost 40 years? I guess people ignoring UN resolutions is not a problem when they're your best bud.geNius wrote:
If a cop lies and says your taillight is out, then finds out you have an outstanding warrant for 12 years, you should still go down.
Possibly, but there are two things to consider.crimson_grunt wrote:
By your logic hasn't Israel had a warrant for almost 40 years? I guess people ignoring UN resolutions is not a problem when they're your best bud.geNius wrote:
If a cop lies and says your taillight is out, then finds out you have an outstanding warrant for 12 years, you should still go down.
1) I never brought Israel into the equation.
a) tangent
· n. -A sudden digression or change of course
2) Think of an alternative to Israel, for the Jews. Present your plan to the UN, and let me know how that goes.
...US mountain engineers spotted a muslim country over US oil ...
Fine, you call it a tangent I call it a double standard. whatever.geNius wrote:
Possibly, but there are two things to consider.crimson_grunt wrote:
By your logic hasn't Israel had a warrant for almost 40 years? I guess people ignoring UN resolutions is not a problem when they're your best bud.
1) I never brought Israel into the equation.
a) tangent
· n. -A sudden digression or change of course
What would be the point? The US would veto it.geNius wrote:
2) Think of an alternative to Israel, for the Jews. Present your plan to the UN, and let me know how that goes.
attackin Iraq in 2003 was like attacking Germany and Japan in 1930, before they got too dangerousfadedsteve wrote:
Germany and Japan were imminent threats the entire time!!Kmarion wrote:
Japan wasn't an imminent threat?Superslim wrote:
Germany wasn't an imminent threat either and neither was Japan after their pacific fleet got wiped. But, given time, they would have been.
Does it matter?DeathBecomesYu wrote:
For your information...the bulk of chemical weapons came from France...not the United Stats.m3thod wrote:
Yeah back in 1988 when he was gassing his people! Where the fuck where you people then? Oh, that right selling him the damn fucking things.fadedsteve wrote:
The case for war was legit!! The timing is what wasnt wise on the part of the Bush administration. . . .
You bollox'ed up just admit it.
An ounce or a ton. They were sold and used.
Now you can go argue amongst your chemical warfare partners regarding the appropriation of blame.
Blackbelts are just whitebelts who have never quit.