I do not recall stating that I "called Bush and co. cluless in regards to continually talking about WMD's".

None the less this is one post that I made prior to the invasion...there are others but you can do your own search...as I do not have the inclination to do so.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by theking


Reasons for war.

#1. Iraq was defeated on the field of battle and signed certain terms. Iraq has been in violation of those terms since they signed the terms in '91. The USA has demanded that those terms be complied with and that Iraq remain a defeated country.

#2. Iraq attempted to assasinate a former American President.

#3. Iraq has fired upon, almost daily, for almost 11 years, USA military forces.

#4. Iraq is believed to have, or are acquiring, or are attempting to acquire WMD's. The USA will not allow that.

#5. Iraq has, on multiple occassions called for Americans, to be killed where ever they are found. Thus they are a sworn enemy of the USA.

#6. Iraq is a strategic piece of real estate for future military operations against our enemies in the region, which number in the 100's of millions.

#7. Iraq is a strategic piece of real estate for its oil fields and for the surrounding oil fields, for as the worlds oil supplies dwindle the USA will be in a position to control the dwindling oil supplies for its use and the use of its European allies.

#8. A take over of Iraq sends a very powerful signal to the other countries in that area of the world that if they don't get their act together they will be next.

Any one of the reasons above is a reason for war.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

some of those are pretty crap reasons to go to war :winkwink:

Just read the whole thread and will hit a few points that jumped out:

First of all, you simply cannot argue that the first Bush administration made a mistake by not marching coalition forces to Baghdad to removing Saddam from power while simultaneously arguing that the current administration made a mistake by going to war without a UN mandate.

Coalition forces in Desert Storm had a UN mandate to liberate Kuwait -- not a mandate to remove Saddam from power.

Any action by coalition forces to remove Saddam from power in Desert Storm would have been outside the scope of a UN mandate and the same as the current unilateral action.

Is it wrong to follow UN mandates and also wrong to not follow UN mandates?

Secondly, the fact that Saddam was not involved with 9/11 in no way means that he did not actively support terrorists and terrorist organizations.

He did and would have continued to do just that, which made him a target in the ongoing 'war on terror'.



That's all for now....

Anyone know a private company that does this?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3332739.stm

So much for the checks and balances in the system. How can you blame people like Bush for taking advantage of idiots like this who will do what they are told, when they are told and with a smile?

Was it Pavlanas dogs that were trained to bark, roll over and beg to comand?

i gotta love theking's "8 reasons for war...any-of-which-will-suffice" list. the irony of course is that if he'd been born an iraqi he'd probably be the one of those iraqi terrorists/geurillas/insurgents firing on the u.s liberators/occupiers/invaders at the moment.

God Bless the Universal Soldier....keep that game of mutual slaughter a-rollin' :thumbsup

<img src="http://www.phillytalkradioonline.com/images_temp/oil-attack.jpg">

Pavlov's :)

Except that the Iraqis didn't have to fight that hard war somebody else did it for them and now somebody else is controlling the country.

Of course bush is not the first to lie... I even said in my statement that clicnton lied... hell, Nixon lied far worse than bush did... and I am sure many many more of our leaders lied and did what was in their best interest... they all do... I was just using those two as more current examples.

If they would have made bin ladden priority, and not a febal attempt to capture him, then I could get behind this whole iraq thing.

I think they were having too much trouble finding bin ladden and the american people were getting impatient so they set the focus of the nation elsewhere.

All these other reasons may be valid... but IMO, it was because bush was looking real bad by not being able to find bin ladden.

Clueless and shall allways remain so. The link provided is a good example of "check and balance".

I want to live in this utopia some of you live in where you pretend that sometimes you dont have to choose between the lesser of two evils and all decisions are perfect.

Its not like the Middle East would have been a better place anyone if Iraq became part of Iran and 100% under Muslim Fundamentalist control.

NBD --

No comments on the points I made? I was looking forward to a discussion.


Ah well -- not much to discuss is there?

Ok, you want my comments? Here they are. :)

We knew back in desert storm (and earlier) what kind of man saddam was, yet we sat back and let it happen and supplied materials (for what ever purpose they were meant for, with a mentality like that in power, they should have known that these materials would be used for no good).

So the UN didn't want us to take saddam out then, they didn;t want us to take him out now either... so, if this was done earlier and daddy bush had the ball little bush has, they our troops would not be over there AGAIN putting their lives on the line.

Hey, if he supports terrorism and funds it, fine take him out... but DO NOT loose focus of the matter at hand. What just because we take out saddam, that will stop the funding of terrorism? Hell no, there will be someone else that will provide that if he doesn't.

The only point I am trying to make is that we should have put and sould continue to put all our efforts into finding the man (bin ladden) who has attacked and killed innocent americans on AMERICAN SOIL! period!.... Then take care of the rest of it.

That is my biggest beef with all this. Sure we need to get rid of terror.. but that WILL NEVER HAPPEN!. As long as ther is hatred there will be people who kill in a terrorist fashion. Hell, most of these terrorist attacks are based on religious beliefs. So to get rid of terror, do we kill anyone who follows that religion? And if so why? This country was founded based on the FREEDOM of religion.

This war on terror is just like the war on drugs... it is a war that will NEVER be won. :2 cents:

How was that? :winkwink:

No, actually have been busy... sorry.. I have a site I need to have done by the end of next week and I am only about 33% done... database stuff and design... Sorry if I have been slow in my responses :winkwink:

You did alright. :winkwink:

But you seem to dismiss the fact that if 'daddy bush' had sent coalition forces to Baghdad in DS1 that an equal number of lives lost.

So it's bad because different troops are dying?

Please.



Of course, taking out Saddam doesn't end terrorism. News flash... neither does capturing 'bin ladden'.

You don't become adult.com without taking small steps towards your objective. Do you?

Post 666 for you... I'm scared lol

Sure lives woould have been lost... how can you go to war and not expect to loose lives. But if saddam is such a bad man, and we knew it.. he should have been taken out a long time ago and not allowed to stay in power.

As for bin ladden not ending terror... of course it will not end after his capture... but arn't you the least bit upset that this man is not being sought after with the same vengence as saddam was? I mean this man attacked us not once but twice on our own soil... has saddam done that?

Like I said above... the war on terror is like the war on drugs... it will be an ongoing battle throughout the existance of man. Where there is demand there will always be supply.

However, the main points remain:

You can't be against the fact GHWB did not remove Saddam from power (while complying with the UN) and against GWB not complying with the UN.

You also cannot dispute that Saddam supported terrorists and terrorist organizations.

So what are we talking about again?

This....

arn't you the least bit upset that this man is not being sought after with the same vengence as saddam was? I mean this man attacked us not once but twice on our own soil...

sorry.. didn't want to type it all again

What would you have us do to capture Bin Laden...some reports state that he is holed up in Pakistan...would you have us invade Pakistan? Some reports state that he is holed up in Iran...would you have us invade Iran? Some reports state that we do not know where he is at...would you have us invade every country in a search for him?

Why not... the countries you mention support terrorism, and we are fighting terrorism... right?

All of this argument now about the war is completely irrelevant. The value of such actions are felt only decades later. I don't claim to know the answers, but is there anyone who would want to give Nam back to the Kamir Rouge, or wants to see the vast majority of Europe under Fascist rule? The actions of the US have been following a pattern that has been established for decades. This pattern has been to support human rights and freedoms, sacrificing the live of our own soldiers, for THE GREATER GOOD. You cannot judge the value of military action as it happens it is retarted to try to do so. So continue to pass judgment and wait for the children of Iraq to thank us in 2035!

I'll be dead by 2035... I want my thanks now goddamit! :winkwink:

Thanks for not trying to argue like a retard!

[double post]

What's to argue... Some people have their belief's and others share a totally different poin tof view.. neigher right or wrong... just a difference of opinion.

No.

Because I disagree with the premise that UBL is not being gone after with the same vengence.

This is not a knock on you, but you [like many others] seem to look at international policy in black and white terms. It's really not black and white.

Would the current administration in Afganistan allow the number of troops currently in Iraq onto their soil to hunt for Bin Laden?

Would allowing that number of US troops in Afganistan ruin any hope of the transitional government taking any hold?

Do you care?

Things are not black and white in international politics.

Think about it for a second -- there is about as much proof that Bin Laden attacked the US twice as there is regarding Iraqi WMD. :winkwink:

Can you back that up? Not trying to be rude.. just curious :winkwink:

Can I back it up?

Of cousre not. That's the point.

Do you have some evidence outside of news reports that UBL attacked the WTC twice?

No, news reports are all I have too.. and we all know we can trust the media to tell us the whole truth...:1orglaugh

What the hell happened to the formatting of this page?

Some idiot exploited the software just as it was getting interesting.

Ah well.

That sucks... I need this to continue... I want to win an x box... I am just getting ready to take the defensive point of view again.... DAMN!!!!! :winkwink: