|
If we didn't go into Iraq... (pg. 3)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| _Ocean_Drive_ |
| quote: | Originally posted by LazFX
WOuld you not agree that diplomacy would be the best against the bigger threats? |
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.
He went out to get revenge and retalliation. Because someone had punctured American secutiry, he needed to exert himself. When a bully gets hit, they need to fight back to show they're not afraid, and that's exactly what he did. He resorted to bombs and military lives to go into Afghanistan to start one quagmire. He then went into Iraq, after he and Rumsfeld profusely declared that there WERE WMDs. Bush is a puppet for the neo-cons, plain and simple.
Post 9/11, Bush should've gone to Saudi and said "help us get these people".
And with regard to Iran, he doesn't have to threaten war. He can say "if you launch anything against Israel, look what we can do to you".
All talk, no war. Diplomacy as you call it. It is a far better way to resolve conflict, such as dictatorships (Spain for example)
It's EXACTLY what happened after World War I, the wester powers crippled Germany. There was no Marshall plan. They didn't help Germany rebuild or anything. And 15 years later...
| quote: | Originally posted by LazFX
or you just going to try to make me feel bad by saying that the rest of the world hates me?? :rolleyes: |
I wish that weren't the case. But I can't help feel angry when America sends in the CIA to topple a fairly elected Chilean leader and replace him with a dictator. Bush is "for free nations" and then doesn't acknowledge an elected Hamas.
I can tell you that a Lebanese father probably doesn't look too kindly on America after a Lockheed-Martin warhead kills his wife and children. Or a Palestinian whose livelyhood is destoryed by some Israeli's who bulldoze their land and crops and then piss and moan how hard done-by Israel is.
And please, remember who Bin-Laden was funded 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 - 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. |
|
|
| Renegade |
| 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. |
|
|
| Fir3start3r |
| 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...:rolleyes: |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Fir3start3r
What was he supposed to do?
Write 'them' a harsh letter?
Please...:rolleyes: |
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? |
|
|
| Fir3start3r |
| 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... |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
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 ing 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....... |
|
|
| Fir3start3r |
| Call me crazy but I don't remember anyone mention stopping the fox hunt? |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| 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. |
|
|
| Sexy_Warden87 |
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. |
|
|
| Moongoose |
| 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. |
|
|
| Groundhog Boy |
| 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" |
:wtf: 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)? |
|
|
|
|
