RE: Incompetent administration, criminal war?

RE: Incompetent administration, criminal war? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

Level -> RE: Incompetent administration, criminal war? (5/13/2006 8:33:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: puella Yeah, but Clinton didn't invade a country without the support of the United Nations, forcing out the weapons inspectors, who.. by the way, were reporting that there was no evidence of weapons, as did the IAEA, and a large portion of our own intelligence... Only W did that.. Maybe no evidence of weapons, but they were being led around by their noses by the Iraqis, who made it look awfully damn suspicious, like they did indeed have something to hide. As for the UN...... I am a supporter of it. But it is flawed... just look at it allowing countries like Libya and the Sudan to sit on the Human Rights council.... so, it is not the be-all, end-all of wisdom. So, just because we didn't have their support is not reason enough to not move ahead. Don't take what I'm saying as a case of me being particularly gung-ho about us going into Iraq, I wasn't.

Level -> RE: Incompetent administration, criminal war? (5/13/2006 8:49:09 PM)
And a parting question before I turn in for bed....... for those of you who think we should not have went into Iraq, what do you think should have been done?

Lordandmaster -> RE: Incompetent administration, criminal war? (5/13/2006 9:08:47 PM)
Exactly what Hans Blix wanted to do: continue with the regime of inspections. They were working. Unless this is a trick question, I don't understand what you're driving at.

Kedikat -> RE: Incompetent administration, criminal war? (5/13/2006 11:08:42 PM)
The best way to win a war is to avoid it. The seeds of wars are usually very obvious. The steps towards war almost a predictable routine. Most wars are initiated by a government that is failing to solve it's country's problems, and casting the blame on another country or convenient race/religion. Most government failings are the result of basing success on ever expanding wealth and selling good governmental concepts for popular votes. Most short sighted governments, primed to start wars to prop themselves up, are elected by short sighted voters who believe what they want the politicians to tell them. I am saddened by the multitudes who shout about patriotism, their childrens future, world peace and democracy. But sell it all out on the ballot, for a tax break. Yes the government wastes a lot of money. So does any huge business. You get what you pay for. You live what you vote for. Your children die for your mistakes. For your comfort today.

Kedikat -> RE: Incompetent administration, criminal war? (5/13/2006 11:17:10 PM)
Iraq was planned years before. The US had plans in the middle east for years. It's oil, and Israel. Anybody who peruses a healthy variet of news and information sources would know that. Project for the new American Century laid it all out in it's documents. Signed off with the names of many in the US cabinet today. Black and white. No question about it. Saddam was an asshole. One of many the US, USSR, France, Great Britain and others have put in place, used and deposed when it suited them. The middle east was the cradle of civilization. We have raided the cradle ever since. The US has escaped the history of this planet by being one of the last to become a power. But it is also repeating all the follies of those before. It's the oil folks. And it's getting scarcer every second......... Soon there won't be much to war over.... Except what your next door neighbour has, that you need to feed your family.... What is your government doing about that?

JohnWarren -> RE: Incompetent administration, criminal war? (5/14/2006 12:34:02 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster Exactly what Hans Blix wanted to do: continue with the regime of inspections. They were working. Unless this is a trick question, I don't understand what you're driving at. What I found amazing was that the US administration said repeatedly they knew where the WMDs were and yet they couldn't turn over the information to Blix because his people weren't cleared for it. At that point, I was certain the administration didn't know squat and was lying. What I failed to understand was just how badly they were lying.

MasterBenedict -> RE: Incompetent administration, criminal war? (5/14/2006 1:04:42 AM)
And please don't forget about those of us who were in the US Army!

Kedikat -> RE: Incompetent administration, criminal war? (5/14/2006 1:35:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MasterBenedict And please don't forget about those of us who were in the US Army! Those of you in the armed forces. I appreciate you. Whatever your reasons for joining up. I think the rest of us have to support you in at least two ways. The appreciation and support through taxes. But more important, to bother to be informed and take real action from the base, as to whether you are put in danger for real good reason. I am CDN/US citizen living in Canada all my life. I am aware of the good and bad reasons that US and some Canadian forces have been put into action and harm. I feel that miltary personnels lives are being wasted in Iraq, and through mismanagement are being wasted in Afghanistan now. Both of these countries issues could have been solved in different ways, less costly in lives. Saddam in Iraq was on the verge of collapse, and US troops were rushed in to take over the remains. At cost to them, with little benifit to anyone. Afghanistan was abandoned, to rush to Iraq. When Afghanistan was the real deal. It could have been saved and could have been appreciative of it afterwards. US troops were robbed of a truly good job to finish.

meatcleaver -> RE: Incompetent administration, criminal war? (5/14/2006 1:43:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster Exactly what Hans Blix wanted to do: continue with the regime of inspections. They were working. Unless this is a trick question, I don't understand what you're driving at. Hans Blix had said, all the evidence was pointing to Iraq not having WMD. Chirac and Schroder both said they didn't believe Iraq had WMD, that intelligence they had seen didn't even start to support the idea there was WMD in Iraq or that Iraq were giving aid to terrorists. In fact the French told Britain that there were more terrorists being given shelter in London under the guise of human rights than were in Iraq. That has since appears to have been proved true at the time. The invasion allowed terrorists to enter Iraq and cause chaos. I know people like to throw scorn on the French but Chirac has proved to be right. I'm not saying French and German reasons for refusing to have anything to do with the war was entirely due to their lack of belief that Iraq had WMD, both had domestic reasons too but they certainly didn't see Iraq as a danger.

Level -> RE: Incompetent administration, criminal war? (5/14/2006 2:08:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster Exactly what Hans Blix wanted to do: continue with the regime of inspections. They were working. Unless this is a trick question, I don't understand what you're driving at. Not a trick question, Lam. Just leftover thoughts from an earlier post about "damned if you do, damned if you don't" regarding the inspections/war. Personally, I agree with you, though I would have preferred a bit more of an aggressive approach, i.e. not letting Sadaam make us look like tools during each inspection.

irishbynature -> RE: Incompetent administration, criminal war? (5/14/2006 5:59:22 AM)
It's odd that we forget the Military Operations that happened a year after the first Gulf War. Our troops stayed behind, finding chemical weapons and disposing of them. Then, we had the "No Fly" zones. (Under Bush I- a president who did a much better job in working w/allies, etc and military brass..I might say). Blaming INTEL is just an excuse to heap blame 'somewhere' other than were it should rest. That is, an poorly thought and poorly planned invasion by this administration. ...leaving our troops vulnerable, and now, in the midst of Civil War. Don't forget what Military Generals have been stating...is anyone listening to them? I am. Also, go back--remember....Bush said "WMD" over and over....and the plain truth is....we didn't FIND ANY. He lied and is still lying...and our troops are still dying. This upsets me a great deal, esp. when ppl try to rationalize all of this as "OK". Then, Bush says, "Oh, it was poor INTEL." Shakes head and says, "Denial is not just a river in Egypt."

JohnWarren -> RE: Incompetent administration, criminal war? (5/14/2006 5:59:27 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Level quote: ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster Exactly what Hans Blix wanted to do: continue with the regime of inspections. They were working. Unless this is a trick question, I don't understand what you're driving at. Not a trick question, Lam. Just leftover thoughts from an earlier post about "damned if you do, damned if you don't" regarding the inspections/war. Personally, I agree with you, though I would have preferred a bit more of an aggressive approach, i.e. not letting Sadaam make us look like tools during each inspection. According to Jack McGeorge, who was there despite the best efforts of the White House and the Washington Post, during the last round of inspections, Iraq was quite accommodating. I recall there was only one case where keys to a lab weren't available on a weekend and it was a few hours before the lab director could be found and brought out, but they hung around the lab and there wasn't any crowd of people inside burning papers or anything like that. Just the sort of thing that could happen at any company on a holiday.

irishbynature -> RE: Incompetent administration, criminal war? (5/14/2006 6:14:31 AM)
quote: It's the oil folks. And it's getting scarcer every second......... Soon there won't be much to war over.... Except what your next door neighbour has, that you need to feed your family.... quote: ORIGINAL: Kedikat Iraq was planned years before. The US had plans in the middle east for years. It's oil, and Israel. Anybody who peruses a healthy variet of news and information sources would know that. Project for the new American Century laid it all out in it's documents. Signed off with the names of many in the US cabinet today. Black and white. No question about it. Saddam was an asshole. One of many the US, USSR, France, Great Britain and others have put in place, used and deposed when it suited them. The middle east was the cradle of civilization. We have raided the cradle ever since. The US has escaped the history of this planet by being one of the last to become a power. But it is also repeating all the follies of those before. It's the oil folks. And it's getting scarcer every second......... Soon there won't be much to war over.... Except what your next door neighbour has, that you need to feed your family.... What is your government doing about that? Yes...what he just said!!! Thank you!

Level -> RE: Incompetent administration, criminal war? (5/14/2006 6:23:47 AM)
Perhaps so, John. I'm certainly no expert on the matter, it just seems stuck in my memory several instances of inspectors being delayed. Here's a link to a speech given by former inspector Scott Ritter, he certainly falls on the "Iraq is no threat" side of the fence; the speech was done September 8, 2002, in Baghdad. http://www.c-span.org/iraq/ritter.asp Then again, here's a link to F.A.I.R., showing that Iraq did not always "play well" with inspectors lol. http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1123

caitlyn -> RE: Incompetent administration, criminal war? (5/14/2006 6:41:19 AM)
I'm not really sure why you post these things. Perhaps the escallation into flames is some sort of D/s thing. [;)] Everyone will have an opinion on the conflict in Iraq ... you are not going to change other people's and they will not change yours. Myself, I think our nation should go to war, when we, or our close friends are directly threatened, and only after all other options have been enhausted. The conflict in Iraq passes none of these tests. The only reasoning is nebulous information about weapons inspectors and weapons of mass destruction. Hardly worth going to war over. Taken a step further ... the Iraqi government did try to assassinate a former President of the United States. To me, that is a good enough reason to go to war. I think many American feel that way. Result ... I don't think it's so much the war that is the issue, but the lies that were told to get us into a war. History teaches us that powerful nations are going to be involved in wars like the one in Iraq. That doesn't mean that we have to accept our government lying to the citizens that foot the bill. At least in the previous wars you mentioned (and I would throw in the First Gulf War), there was a clear reason, and a reason that wasn't an out-and-out lie. That is the biggest difference with this war. I don't believe our government was telling the truth to it's own citizens. That is just unacceptable.

meatcleaver -> RE: Incompetent administration, criminal war? (5/14/2006 6:49:01 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: caitlyn Taken a step further ... the Iraqi government did try to assassinate a former President of the United States. To me, that is a good enough reason to go to war. I think many American feel that way. Come on Caitlyn, how many political leaders has the US tried to assassinate? The US has made assassination as a legitimate extension of diplomacy.

JohnWarren -> RE: Incompetent administration, criminal war? (5/14/2006 8:37:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Level Perhaps so, John. I'm certainly no expert on the matter, it just seems stuck in my memory several instances of inspectors being delayed. That was true in the early days of the program. However, after they had been kicked out and then invited back, Iraq seemed to be leaning over backward to cooperate.

DelightMachine -> RE: Incompetent administration, criminal war? (5/14/2006 9:30:18 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: caitlyn I'm not really sure why you post these things. Perhaps the escallation into flames is some sort of D/s thing. [;)] You tease! Yours, my dear woman, is the worst flame so far directed against me in this thread, at least that I recall. And I'm too busy and lazy right now to flip back to the beginning to see if I'm wrong. You seem to be too lazy (or busy or bored) to see some of the posts on this thread which have already addressed some of what you say here. quote: Everyone will have an opinion on the conflict in Iraq ... you are not going to change other people's and they will not change yours. If we can't change people's opinions, then it isn't worth having discussions. If nobody's open-minded, then democracy is worth nothing. The exchange of ideas isn't a power play, it's a chance to influence others. It doesn't happen immediately, but it happens. I know I've been influenced by others, even here on this board. I believe others are influenced, even if they're too chicken to admit it. quote: Myself, I think our nation should go to war, when we, or our close friends are directly threatened, and only after all other options have been enhausted. The conflict in Iraq passes none of these tests. The most eloquent thing I can say about that, right now, is: Bullshit. Explanation follows below. quote: The only reasoning is nebulous information about weapons inspectors and weapons of mass destruction. Hardly worth going to war over. If YOU want to dawdle about putting up with with a thoroughly evil regime that (1) had been actively trying to get nuclear, biological and chemical weapons of mass destruction, (2) that was evil enough to use them and (3) had ties to terrorists and (4) that considered us an enemy, then go ahead and believe we weren't at risk. We'd already had an enormous terrorist strike in our country and it doesn't take much imagination to believe that more conspiracies to commit terrorist strikes -- involving WMDs -- could be hatched in Iraq. At the time, sanctions were in place but they were losing support in the U.N. and it would have been worse to attack Iraq later. We did the right thing, and, if security of this country is at all a concern of yours, you should agree that this was a NECESSARY WAR. I don't understand people, even supporters of this war, who disagree with that. I just don't understand how the argument I've made in the previous paragraph isn't something everyone agrees with. For instance, why don't you? quote: Taken a step further ... the Iraqi government did try to assassinate a former President of the United States. To me, that is a good enough reason to go to war. I think many American feel that way. Result ... I don't think it's so much the war that is the issue, but the lies that were told to get us into a war. History teaches us that powerful nations are going to be involved in wars like the one in Iraq. That doesn't mean that we have to accept our government lying to the citizens that foot the bill. At least in the previous wars you mentioned (and I would throw in the First Gulf War), there was a clear reason, and a reason that wasn't an out-and-out lie. That is the biggest difference with this war. I don't believe our government was telling the truth to it's own citizens. That is just unacceptable. Not telling the truth about WMDs? Some other posters on this thread have made that point. I'll answer that in another post soon. Wait a minute, you believe it was OK to go to war because of one assassination attempt but not because we were at risk of Iraq putting hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of people to death in our country through a terrorist-delivered WMD? One assassination attempt is worse than that?

DelightMachine -> RE: Incompetent administration, criminal war? (5/14/2006 9:36:51 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver Hans Blix had said, all the evidence was pointing to Iraq not having WMD. Chirac and Schroder both said they didn't believe Iraq had WMD, that intelligence they had seen didn't even start to support the idea there was WMD in Iraq or that Iraq were giving aid to terrorists. How does that square with the French, German, Russian, Italian intelligence agencies saying, before the war, that there were WMDs? How does that square with the Clinton Administration saying they believed Iraq was furiously working on WMDs? How is it that it's BUSH who lied about WMDs and not all the rest of them? How? Just answer the question.

DelightMachine -> RE: Incompetent administration, criminal war? (5/14/2006 10:08:52 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Gauge This current fiasco was started on the pretext that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and was funneling things to terrorists. We get there... oops... no WMD. I remember something else from WW2 -- Einstein and others warned that the Nazis were trying to create an atomic bomb. They didn't have one yet, and we didn't declare war until after Japan attacked us and Germany then declared war against us. Now, Einstein didn't warn that the Nazis HAD nukes, just that they were trying to build them and that it was possible to create them. If we have to wait until a country actually HAS weapons of mass destruction that would be kind of ... stupid, wouldn't it? A lot of history is being rewritten by the Left on this. There were multiple reasons for going to war and Bush was criticized for giving one reason and then another and then another. For political reasons the Bush administration thought they should concentrate more on the WMD reason, and they thought they had a good case for that. But it mattered more that Saddam LUSTED after WMDs -- see my 1-4 list in my post to Caitlyn just above. quote: And if I recall the UN may have been wobbly on sanctions but they were pretty clear that we didn't have full support for a war. (please correct me if I am wrong... I do not always remember things with entire clarity) Same here, but as I recall, they declared Iraq was in violation of its agreements and was acting dangerously. In international law, that's enough, and if it isn't enough in international law, then international law needed to be changed (actually it was enough). As for UN approval, you don't need that to go to war under international law and even under UN rules. Those governments that admitted Iraq was acting dangerously and were opposed to the U.S. and U.K. invading had their heads firmly up their asses. They would have dithered forever as Iraq got WMDs, threatened others and put WMDs in the hands of terrorists. Sorry, I didn't think we could afford to wait for that. Neither did the Bush administration. Neither did a majority of the American people, and so we went in. quote: The American people were lied to. The world was lied to by the American government. Short response: Bullshit. Explanation of response: See my post responding to Caitlyn above. quote: The US launched an all out attack on terrorism post September 11th 2001. Iraq was convenient. What has been revealed thus far about the actions of this president is quite telling and history will not forget the blunder. No matter what happened afterward, the decision to go in was right, and that will become more clear over time. You don't blunder by removing serious threats of mass destruction of your citizens. That's a success. quote: In hindsight to this point, did the US have good reasons to invade Iraq? Were there large amounts or even small amounts of WMD? What was our stated objective? Answered in response to Caitlyn above. quote: What is our stated exit strategy? In necessary wars you don't absolutely need exit strategies. You do what you have to do. If we have to leave Iraq in ruins, we're still better off than when we had a mad dictator lusting after WMDs and terrorist connections. Same goes for Iran, by the way.

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125