TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- If we didn't go into Iraq...
Pages (2): « 1 [2]

A fabulous qoute from the journalist Christopher Hitchens:

My allegiances have changed in the sense that I now find the noises made on the left -which are basically to the effect that we shouldn�t have intervened in Serbia, we shouldn�t have intervened in Afghanistan, we shouldn�t have intervened in Iraq - would have left us with Slobodan Milosevic in power, Bosnia ethnically cleansed, Kosovo part of Greater Serbia, Afghanistan under the Taliban, and Iraq the property of a psychopathic crime family. Now, I�m sorry to say, I�ve no patience with that leftist mentality any more.

So therefore, I entirely agree with you.

quote:

My concern is ... well what did the US really go there for ?

I'll explain why the US invaded Iraq. They were actually already at war with Iraq before Iraq was invaded. Saddam Hussein had demonstrable connections with international terror (Abu Nidal, money to the Palestinien suicideterroist, Zarqawu) and most essentially WMD-programs. US utilized the same information as France, Germanny and Russian which all approved the facts about Iraq's weaponprograms - they just chose different (politically motivated)conclusions about what they should do about it.
So the plans to attack Iraw was already being planned under Clinton. The 9/11 was just an occasion to do it.

quote:

Originally posted by Sexy_Warden87 A fabulous qoute from the journalist Christopher Hitchens: My allegiances have changed in the sense that I now find the noises made on the left -which are basically to the effect that we shouldn�t have intervened in Serbia, we shouldn�t have intervened in Afghanistan, we shouldn�t have intervened in Iraq

Which "leftist" voices argued against intevention in Kosovo and Afghanistan? The Kosovan intervention was headed by Bill Clinton and - if I'm not mistaken - opposed by a great many Republicans. The Afghan invasion was supported by most people on all sides of the political divide. Even the Iraqi war was voted for overwhelmingly by the Democrats - and the ones who opposed it are starting to look pretty damn sensible now, aren't they?

quote:

I'll explain why the US invaded Iraq. They were actually already at war with Iraq before Iraq was invaded.

What?

quote:

Saddam Hussein had demonstrable connections with international terror (Abu Nidal, money to the Palestinien suicideterroist, Zarqawu)

You haven't been following the news much lately, have you?

http://www.aberdeennews.com/mld/abe...al/15478306.htm

quote:

and most essentially WMD-programs.

Or the news from several years ago for that matter?

https://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/

quote:

US utilized the same information as France, Germanny and Russian which all approved the facts about Iraq's weaponprograms - they just chose different (politically motivated)conclusions about what they should do about it.

I find it ironic that you would accuse France, Germany and Russia of reaching "politcally motivated" conclusions about Iraq's WMD capabilities in the same thread that you play apologist for the US-led invasion. Firstly, could you provide me with a credible source demonstrating that the French, Russian and German intelligence agencies believed - with anywhere near the same vigour as the US intelligence agencies - that Iraq was in possession of WMDs? Perhaps you weren't following the events leading up to the war all that closely, but the US never seemed to have a "slam-dunk" case either. Here's Colin Powell's speech to the UN, detailing all the evidence the CIA had on Iraq's WMD threat:

http://edition.cnn.com/2003/US/02/0...ript/index.html

Read that and tell me that there was ever any solid evidence to suggest that Iraq had WMD capabilities? If you can't be bothered, at least read my reaction from a couple of hours after the speech:

http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...&threadid=88933

The evidence was shallow from the beginning: even allowing for hindsight, I don't think this can be debated.

quote:

So the plans to attack Iraw was already being planned under Clinton.

Yep, by the same deluded neo-cons who led the chorus for the Iraq invasion in 2003:

http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm

quote:

The 9/11 was just an occasion to do it.

You're actually right here. I hope you understand why.

quote:

Originally posted by _Ocean_Drive_ I 100% agree - diplomacy would have been the BEST thing Bush could've done on September 12th. The vast majority of the world was in mourning for America that day. He had the majority of the world on his side, and he threw it back in everyone's faces.

What was he supposed to do?
Write 'them' a harsh letter?
Please...

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r What was he supposed to do? Write 'them' a harsh letter? Please...

Just to clarify, are we talking about Afghanistan/Taliban, or Iraq?

If the former, I agree with your sarcasm.

If the latter, uhh, who attacked us again?

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Just to clarify, are we talking about Afghanistan/Taliban, or Iraq? If the former, I agree with your sarcasm. If the latter, uhh, who attacked us again?

Sorry; the former...

And thank goodness we stopped our operations in Afghanistan on going after the mastermind ****** who attacked us so we could divert our attention to the REAL war on terror, the REAL mastermind of 9/11 and Al Qaeda, Saddam Hussein:

quote:

On the videotape obtained by the CIA, bin Laden is seen confidently instructing his party how to dig holes in the ground to lie in undetected at night. A bomb dropped by a U.S. aircraft can be seen exploding in the distance. "We were there last night," bin Laden says without much concern in his voice. He was in or headed toward Pakistan, counterterrorism officials think. That was December 2001. Only two months later, Bush decided to pull out most of the special operations troops and their CIA counterparts in the paramilitary division that were leading the hunt for bin Laden in Afghanistan to prepare for war in Iraq, said Flynt L. Leverett, then an expert on the Middle East at the National Security Council. "I was appalled when I learned about it," said Leverett, who has become an outspoken critic of the administration's counterterrorism policy. "I don't know of anyone who thought it was a good idea. It's very likely that bin Laden would be dead or in American custody if we hadn't done that." Several officers confirmed that the number of special operations troops was reduced in March 2002. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...0901105_pf.html

Remember, it wasn't long after the Iraqi invasion that Bush claimed he wasn't concerned too much about bin Laden anymore.

No kidding, really? Is that why Bush shut down the CIA unit that was hunting down bin Laden as of late?:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...0901105_pf.html

(though I believe there is a story that under pressure he started the unit back up, but I can't find the story. Nevertheless shutting down this unit is downright fucking inexcusable in the first place).

And thank goodness things are going so well in Iraq anyway. Whew, for a second there I had nightmares of a civil war and a government allied with our greatest threat, Iran.

Thank goodness it was only a nightmare. Must have been those damn libruls gettin' to me. Rummy was spot on with his troop number and post-war planning, as always. Never question, always accept their authority. Just can't stand all those America-haters out there.......

Call me crazy but I don't remember anyone mention stopping the fox hunt?

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r Call me crazy but I don't remember anyone mention stopping the fox hunt?

You're crazy.

Otherwise there would be a perfectly logical explanation why the most dangerous and wanted man on earth is still running around Pakistan, and why we had him in our sights but diverted away towards a hapless dictator and installed a government allied with Iran instead.

I guess another idea could be the rational:

2) Bush and his Administration are absolutely incompetent boobs.

Either one will work.

Renegade.

Whether or not Saddam Hussein had WMD or not the main focus should be the fact that he had the intentions and abilities to produce them. Secondly, imagine still having him today as a dictator. During the sanctions 500.000 people died in Iraq of hunger and more would probably have suffered if we had continued the sanctions and when the spotlight had turned away from Saddam - he would have continued the production. Solid evidence is not important in this matter.
And additionally the terror or WMD part is not the most important in my opinion. The most important is the fact that the US is trying to make a regime change in the potentionally strongest land in the middle East and creating democracy. and u might say they have failed in this matter but thats another side of the story.

quote:

Originally posted by Sexy_Warden87 Solid evidence is not important in this matter.

Oh im sorry, but since when doesnt solid evidenca matter anymore? I would figure that if a simple pickpocket wont get sentanced if he isnt proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt, even though his sentance wont leave a significant mark on the world, I would think that when the stakes get higher and tens of thousands of innocent lives are at risk solid evidence gets even more important.

quote:

Originally posted by Moongoose Oh im sorry, but since when doesnt solid evidenca matter anymore? I would figure that if a simple pickpocket wont get sentanced if he isnt proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt, even though his sentance wont leave a significant mark on the world, I would think that when the stakes get higher and tens of thousands of innocent lives are at risk solid evidence gets even more important.

Since George Bush said it doesn't.

Seriously, what the hell is wrong with some of you people. First, most modern european nations have the means to make weapons, can we attack them if they piss us off, too?

quote:

The most important is the fact that the US is trying to make a regime change in the potentionally strongest land in the middle East and creating democracy"

Can some other country come and implement regime change here in the US, please, since we're the strongest land in North America (yes, we are stronger than Canada and Mexico)?

Of course solid evidence matter. But thats not the point.

Groundhog boy when ever the world acts like a biatch I'd like US to come and clean it up cuz' EU aint doing shit.
keep cleaning up in the middle east and north korea
keep up the good work

quote:

Originally posted by Sexy_Warden87 Of course solid evidence matter. But thats not the point. Groundhog boy when ever the world acts like a biatch I'd like US to come and clean it up cuz' EU aint doing shit. keep cleaning up in the middle east and north korea keep up the good work

Can we just take over the world. I think that'd solve all our problems, right?

quote:

Originally posted by Sexy_Warden87 Renegade. Whether or not Saddam Hussein had WMD or not the main focus

I hear ya. I wouldn't want to be too focused on those conclusive albeit substantially inaccurate false claims made by this Administration on his WMD stockpiles either.

I also wouldn't want to bear down too much on the details of his connections to al Qaeda and 9/11, because those silly little intelligence reports continually state "no operational ties" over and over too.

These two silly points need to continue being handwaved away. Why don't more people see the irrelevance like you and I?

quote:

should be the fact that he had the intentions and abilities to produce them.

I hear ya on that one too. It's pretty interesting really, when one thinks about all those other countries that hates our guts with such vigor that have these similar intentions of their own.

I personally can't wait until we invade each and every one of them. It might take awhile to invade about a dozen or so, but that's why we need the neocons to remain in power, IMO.

And I really hate that darn Duelfer report myself. You know, the one that outlined how Saddam's capabilities were destroyed years before in the 90's successfully by that blow-job lovin' Democrat. Hindsight schmindsight, who cares? Operation Curveball was a raging success, IMO, and I wish we had more intelligence folks coming from Chalabi's Iraqi Exile Group giving us false info. on WMD capability and stockpiles to feed to the public and Congress.

But hey, at least that Judy Miller character out of that stupid librul NYTimes newspaper did the job well enough. Thank God for her!

I also think we need to be pretty downright dismissive of George Tenet when he says things like this:

quote:

We do not have any direct evidence that Iraq has used the period since Desert Fox to reconstitute its WMD programs http://www.fas.org/irp/threat/bian_feb_2001.htm

Of course then he goes on and states that the situation, however, is LIKELY, even though we don't have good intelligence on the matter.

I mean, who wants to read such stupid details? I mean, yeah, I GUESS we have to concede the point NOW that we know Saddam was indeed, hapless and incapable of doing jack shit and has been incapable for years (damn that Duelfer character!), but I really hate cuttin' hairs on this stuff, don't you?

quote:

Secondly, imagine still having him today as a dictator.

Oh man, tell me about it! I would have given up the hunt right there on the spot for the bastard fuck who actually attacked us in Tora Bora to go after this hapless dictator in another country that had nothing to do with 9/11 any day of the week and twice on Sundays! Damn straight!

If Bush states that he doesn't think too much about bin Laden, why the hell would I?

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/rele...20020313-8.html

Nothing wrong with a few truces with al Qaeda boys and our terrific ally, Pakistan:

quote:

The Pakistani regime of Gen. Pervez Musharraf has been negotiating truces - with the Bush administration's encouragement - with Islamic separatists in North Waziristan and South Waziristan, mountainous tribal areas along the Afghan border where U.S. officials think bin Laden may be hiding. In return, Pakistani officials are promising to restrict the country's troops in the area to major bases and towns and to pour huge amounts of aid - much of it from the United States and other nations - into the destitute region, according to American officials. But as the truces take hold, separatists have been crossing into Afghanistan to fight alongside Taliban and al-Qaida fighters, according to Western and Afghan officials. http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwas...ld/15419933.htm

Baah, even lately the guy's not important to me or Bush:

quote:

We now know why the Bush administration hasn't made the capture of Osama bin Laden a paramount goal of the war on terror. Emphasis on bin Laden doesn't fit with the administration's strategy for combating terrorism. Here's how President Bush explained this Tuesday: "This thing about . . . let's put 100,000 of our special forces stomping through Pakistan in order to find bin Laden is just simply not the strategy that will work." Rather, Bush says there's a better way to stay on offense against terrorists. "The way you win the war on terror," Bush said, "is to find people [who are terrorists] and get them to give you information about what their buddies are fixing to do." http://www.weeklystandard.com/Conte...12/696wnfcp.asp

Thank goodness we got a hapless dictator in his place! I just can't stress that importance enough! Well, even though the place has gone to hell in a handbasket on the brink of a civil war and we've installed an Islamic fundamentalist regime allied with our new greatest enemy, Iran, but I just don't care! Why get all ruffled over such details?

quote:

During the sanctions 500.000 people died in Iraq of hunger and more would probably have suffered if we had continued the sanctions and when the spotlight had turned away from Saddam - he would have continued the production. Solid evidence is not important in this matter.

Damn straight! Solid evidence is NEVER important on these things.

I sure wish Bush would have made a more humanitarian approach to this whole mess. For some darn reason all I can remember is WMD being pointed at our heads, manless drones being launched within 45 minutes, aluminum tubes for centrifuging, uranium being purchased in Africa, meetings in Prague with Iraqi admin. higher ups and Mohammed Atta from al Qaeda, we are about to get attacked NOW NOW NOW so we must invade NOW NOW NOW, al Qaeda and Saddam are best buddies, anyone who thinks otherwise is unAmerican and is only aiding the terrorists, and somewhere down on that rationale list that seemingly rarely if ever got mentioned were the humanitarian problem.

Hmmm, that must have been the same reason why Bush thought so damn hard to invade all those other countries that have such a monumental humanitarian crisis, problems that merely dwarf Saddam's atrocities on his own people. We did invade the Congo, didn't we? Somalia? All those countries in Africa? Half the Middle East?

Dang, can't remember. All I remember now is we must stay the course, and the libruls are helping the terrorists.

quote:

And additionally the terror or WMD part is not the most important in my opinion.

Of course it isn't! You don't need to keep telling me, brother! I have done my part and have successfully erased all those messages our beloved President and staff gave about the threat of WMD pointed right at our skulls by Saddam, all those speeches over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over about how we MUST invade NOW DAMNIT!!! NOW!!! Those things are irrelevant in my view too.

We sure do think alike, you and I.

quote:

The most important is the fact that the US is trying to make a regime change in the potentionally strongest land in the middle East and creating democracy. and u might say they have failed in this matter but thats another side of the story.

Hey, you don't hear me saying that! That Renegade fella isn't even from America, so don't bother listenin' to that terrorist-lovin' Aussie! I don't want to hear that other side of the story myself. I thought Rummy was spot on for having absolutely no fucking clue, or more importantly, completely dismissive of anyone bringing up a viable post-war plan post-invasion to bring in a new regime. Things are TERRIFIC there!

Iran is jealous I tell ya! They SO wanna be like Iraq. So does Syria. So does anyone! Forced "democracy" with guns and tanks is awesome! I mean, the "democracy" may look a little wierd and all, maybe not quite what we expected, maybe nothing like what we expected especially being a little Shiitish with having close ties to our enemy Iran and all, but you can just tell Iran wants the same. They're BEGGING to be invaded with a choice war! They SO want to have anywhere between 60,000-100,000 civilians to be killed just like Iraq.

And I tell ya, our folks here in America DEMANDS we keep sending troops into other countries so we can bring our brave soldiers home in body bags, all 2,500 of them. And I tell ya, as a physical therapist in training, I LOVE seeing how we can help those 15,000 or so disabled men and women who've got their arms and legs blown off, so I can help them return to their normal functional activities of daily living with no legs! It's just fucking AWESOME, man! You should see them hobble around the rehab ward with big ass grins on their faces as if they just have no cares in the world! I swear I think they're almost happier with a limb or three missing! And my buddy who's about to get his PhD in psychology can't WAIT to get his hands on all those vets who've suffered from post-traumatic stress syndrome as well as depression, anger management, divorce, oh man the list is endless!

Well I don't know about you, but I'm sure thinking about dropping out of school and joining up so I can support my leader and cause of invading every fucking troubled country out there! Whadya say, buddy? Will you join me? I just can't see any better way to support my President and his cause of global invasion and world policing other than joining up and fighting in the front line for the cause. Don't you agree? I can't stand all those 101st keyboardists out there who talk the talk and send others out there to fight for them while they sit around and fight for their cause over the internet. I just can't stand to be one of those bastards anymore. When shall we sign up together?

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.