|
[Poll]
|
War in Iraq
|
| We are in Iraq because of oil |
|
| We are in Iraq to liberate the less fortunate |
|
| We are in Iraq to protect Israel |
|
| We are in Iraq to stop terrorists |
|
| We are in Iraq for some other reason |
|
Total Votes : 410
|
(last vote on : 7/20/2008 4:42:49 PM)
(Poll will run till: -- )
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: War in Iraq - 8/19/2005 2:40:19 PM
|
|
|
Dancre
Posts: 1331
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
Man, i'm soooo tired of saying the same thing over and over again. and i'm soooo amazed at those who decide it's ok to ignore truth and make up their own truth.
according to the Duelfer report, Hussain was moving towards reestablishing his WMD. He moved in his scientists, even paid off the members of the UN to bring down the santions. His own men even knew of his plans: rebuild the weaponry programs.
yet STILL after all of this you still have the stubborn saying, we shouldn't have gone to war. interesting. pick and chose your truth. Hussain wants to rebuild the WMD's but it's still wrong to go to war. MMMM???? Does that make sense????
ok, let's go back in time. It's the spring of 2002. New York is recovering from 9/11 and the UN inspectors find out Hussain has ignore 17 Resolutions. they try to inspect areas but Hussain says, no you can't go in there. So we slap his hands as in the past and go on our way, hoping nothing bad happens. Now, we know for a fact that he paid off members of the UN, so with the UN's pressure, Hussain's restrictions are lifted. it's now 2005, Hussain's weaponry program is on the right track and bush is impeached for not doing something earlier.
yeap, it was very wrong to go to war.
Now i will admit, i don't think there were weapons, but the truth IS he WANTED TO REBUILD HIS WMD PROGRAM!!!!!! (why did he pay off the UN if not???? please answer that question, if you can????) As hard as that is for some folks to realize, it's right there in the Duelfer report. read it and weep.
Kim
|
|
|
|
RE: War in Iraq - 8/19/2005 5:27:51 PM
|
|
|
jgarden
Posts: 62
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Dancre
Man, i'm soooo tired of saying the same thing over and over again. and i'm soooo amazed at those who decide it's ok to ignore truth and make up their own truth.
according to the Duelfer report, Hussain was moving towards reestablishing his WMD. He moved in his scientists, even paid off the members of the UN to bring down the santions. His own men even knew of his plans: rebuild the weaponry programs.
yet STILL after all of this you still have the stubborn saying, we shouldn't have gone to war. interesting. pick and chose your truth. Hussain wants to rebuild the WMD's but it's still wrong to go to war. MMMM???? Does that make sense????
ok, let's go back in time. It's the spring of 2002. New York is recovering from 9/11 and the UN inspectors find out Hussain has ignore 17 Resolutions. they try to inspect areas but Hussain says, no you can't go in there. So we slap his hands as in the past and go on our way, hoping nothing bad happens. Now, we know for a fact that he paid off members of the UN, so with the UN's pressure, Hussain's restrictions are lifted. it's now 2005, Hussain's weaponry program is on the right track and bush is impeached for not doing something earlier.
yeap, it was very wrong to go to war.
Now i will admit, i don't think there were weapons, but the truth IS he WANTED TO REBUILD HIS WMD PROGRAM!!!!!! (why did he pay off the UN if not???? please answer that question, if you can????) As hard as that is for some folks to realize, it's right there in the Duelfer report. read it and weep.
Kim
1. The Bush Administration has no faith or respect for the UN, so to cite its 17 resolutions as the justification for its actions is "hypocritical" at best.
2. Sadaam is accused of "buying" votes in the UN. One has to wonder how many of the Coalition of the Willing benefited from US foreign aid in return for their support?
Afghanistan, Albania, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Colombia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Georgia, Hungary, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, the Netherlands, Nicaragua, the Philippines, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Spain, Turkey, United Kingdom and Uzbekistan.
3. The Duefler Report is based on circumstantial evidence. The 9/11 Commission contradicts it. Sadaam may have very well have been working on a weapons program but the onus was on the Bush Administration is to produce the evidence.
4. This whole process was initiated to "neutralize" Bin Laden and Al Qaeda after their terrorist attack. Their is no question who was responsible for 9/11. So why has this now become a sideline issue to the war in Iraq where no credible link has been established.
< Message edited by jgarden -- 8/19/2005 7:23:22 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: War in Iraq - 8/19/2005 7:43:56 PM
|
|
|
jgarden
Posts: 62
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
Declaring war in Vietnam may not have been spineless - but like Iraq it was a tactical mistake. You can win all the military battles, but lose the peace.
There are numerous nations that are anti-American but have not suffered the same results as Iraq. Despite the Right's "Might is Right" mindset, the impact of modern technology in urban centers is limited and not a long term advantage against a fanatical enemy.
When in the forseeable future, does the Bush Administration see an end to this escalating violence? Reliance on an Iraqi police system may look good on paper, but Vietnam showed that you can't depend on the hearts and minds of a people when the majority mistrust American motives.
< Message edited by jgarden -- 8/19/2005 8:49:14 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: War in Iraq - 8/19/2005 10:47:43 PM
|
|
|
wing2000
Posts: 885
Joined: 4/14/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
according to the Duelfer report, Hussain was moving towards reestablishing his WMD.
"...moving towards" or having the intent to produce WMD is quite different than actually having the means and capability to do so. Iraq was not a threat. And least you need to be reminded once more, the Bush Adminstration took the nation to war on the basis that Sadaam possesed biological & chemical weapons and was well on his way to building NUCLEAR weapons. Certainly you recall the pre-war speech reference to nuclear mushroom cloudss over American cities...yet no report either prior or post war was able to support that baseless assertions.
Some of us actually take war, and it's long term consequences, seriously. As our troops spend the next decade in Iraq, I hope you think it was worth it.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: War in Iraq - 8/19/2005 10:55:40 PM
|
|
|
Lizahana
Posts: 785
Joined: 4/20/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Dancre
Man, i'm soooo tired of saying the same thing over and over again. and i'm soooo amazed at those who decide it's ok to ignore truth and make up their own truth.
I hear you, woman!)
according to the Duelfer report, Hussain was moving towards reestablishing his WMD.
In some areas, yes, in others, no.
He moved in his scientists, even paid off the members of the UN to bring down the santions. His own men even knew of his plans: rebuild the weaponry programs.
Dancre, I alreadly highlighted where it states that Hussein had no plans to restart, nuclear: "ISG found no evidence to suggest concerted efforts to restart the program.... " and chemical:
"While a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions have been discovered, ISG judges that Iraq unilaterally destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991.There are no credible indications that Baghdad resumed production of chemical munitions thereafter, a policy ISG attributes to Baghdad’s desire to see sanctions lifted, or rendered ineffectual, or its fear of force against it should WMD be discovered...", biological: "In practical terms, with the destruction of the Al Hakam facility, Iraq abandoned its ambition to obtain
advanced BW weapons quickly. ISG found no direct evidence that Iraq, after 1996, had plans for a new BW
program or was conducting BW-specifi c work for military purposes. Indeed, from the mid-1990s, despite
evidence of continuing interest in nuclear and chemical weapons, there appears to be a complete absence of
discussion or even interest in BW at the Presidential level."... "
And, I again post from the CIA website:
http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/Comp_Report_Key_Findings.pdf
I mean, do you know what things like, "ISG found no evidence to suggest concerted efforts to restart the program.... " mean? You know, it means that "ISG found no evidence to suggest concerted efforts to restart the program.... ", ie, the ISG - you know the one commissioned by our President - finds NO evidence of Iraq PLANNING to restart anything, much less even POSSESSING weapons! If you feel this is wrong, by all means, write to C. Duelfer and the ISG! They are the ones stating this, not me! )
yet STILL after all of this you still have the stubborn saying, we shouldn't have gone to war. interesting.
Most definitely: now you're starting to make sense...sweeeeeeet! :)
pick and chose your truth.
Are you talking about you? Or, heh?
Hussain wants to rebuild the WMD's but it's still wrong to go to war. MMMM???? Does that make sense????
Ah, C. Duelfer & the ISG disagree with you, but, write to them. They may have time to respond, since they called off the search for WMD, even for WMD moving across the border, in June of this year.
ok, let's go back in time. It's the spring of 2002. New York is recovering from 9/11 and the UN inspectors find out Hussain has ignore 17 Resolutions. they try to inspect areas but Hussain says, no you can't go in there. So we slap his hands as in the past and go on our way, hoping nothing bad happens. Now, we know for a fact that he paid off members of the UN, so with the UN's pressure, Hussain's restrictions are lifted. it's now 2005, Hussain's weaponry program is on the right track and bush is impeached for not doing something earlier.
Heh? So you're saying that, while Hussein did NOT POSSESS WMD, we should still invade his country, knowing full-well there will be massive innocent Iraqi deaths, and the loss of our best & brightest, because he did not allow inspectors in - even though he did NOT possess WMD, and invited the inspectors back in right before we invaded?! Wow...
yeap, it was very wrong to go to war.
I totally agree 100%!!!!
Now i will admit, i don't think there were weapons, but the truth IS he WANTED TO REBUILD HIS WMD PROGRAM!!!!!! (why did he pay off the UN if not???? please answer that question, if you can????)
So, by your logic, you're saying we should invade every country that "WANTS WMD" - though, they may not possess them? What about N. Korea, who BEFORE we invaded Iraq, ACTUALLY POSSESSED WMD, was firing missiles into the Pacific, was publicly threatening the US & whose people unfortunately also suffer human rights violations - they were definitely more of a threat to us, yet we invade Iraq. If you believe we should invade every country that "WANTS WMD" - then we will lose even more of the blood of our best & brightest, and I will simply not stand for that. If you can sleep at night, supporting such policy, good for you. I cannot.
As hard as that is for some folks to realize, it's right there in the Duelfer report. read it and weep.
I have, and have posted from the CIA website. Kim
Ciao. Peace & God bless :)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: War in Iraq - 8/19/2005 11:00:16 PM
|
|
|
JustaChristian
Posts: 43
Joined: 5/20/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
Sunday, Jan. 11, 2004 1:31 p.m. EST
Multiple Tests Confirming Iraq WMD Send Media Into Deep Spin
Mulitple tests conducted in Iraq by Danish and British experts indicate that Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction have finally been discovered, but mainstream news editors either ignored the story Sunday morning or are furiously spinning the news as inconsequential.
Two days later. This article also has pictures. They were more than 10 years old and not usable. We went to war based on the premise of an immediate threat, not the fact that Sadaam had wmd's in the past. That was common knowledge.
'No blister agent' in Iraq shells
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3407853.stm
The shells had been buried for about 10 years
Three dozen mortar shells uncovered in Iraq earlier this month had no chemical agents, the Danish army says.
It is not clear why initial tests first showed they could contain blister gas, the Danish army said in a statement carried by the AP news agency.
The 36 shells were found in southern Iraq buried among building equipment, even though they appeared to have been abandoned for at least 10 years.
See link to read on and see pictures
|
|
|
|
|
RE: War in Iraq - 8/19/2005 11:06:04 PM
|
|
|
Lizahana
Posts: 785
Joined: 4/20/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
quote:
1. The Bush Administration has no faith or respect for the UN, so to cite its 17 resolutions as the justification for its actions "hypocritical" at best.
I hope it doesn’t have respect for the UN; it has proved to be an utterly corrupt organization.
Gee, I wonder where they learn such behavior?
quote:
3. The Duefler is based on circumstantial evidence. The 9/11 Commission contradicts it. Saddam may have very well have been working on a weapons program but the onus was on the Bush Administration is to produce the evidence.
I love it; the left always refers to Duelfer when it agrees with what they believe, but dismisses it when it doesn’t.
And, I love it when the right cannot think of a thing to say and has to generalize as such.
quote:
4. This whole process was initiated to "neutralize" Bin Laden and Al Qaeda after their terrorist attack. There is no question who was responsible for 9/11. So why has this now become a sideline issue to the war in Iraq where no credible link has been established.
Al Queda was able to gain the power it did because a rogue nation (Afganistan) housed and trained terrorists. We ignored that because our then President didn’t have the will to deal with issues forthrightly. We suffered the consequences.
Al Queda was able to gain power because the CIA under Reagan supplied one of their leaders, bin Laden, with funding, training in the 80's. And which President left Afghanistan after it trained bin Laden, and left him to flourish with the likes of the Taliban. Why, none other than Bush Sr.
Following the war in Afghanistan, another rogue nation thumbed it’s nose at the US despite being subject to sanctions following the Gulf War. We could follow the Clintonesque, now left-wing model as demonstrated with Afghanistan, that is, act like nothing is going on, or we could act to insure the threat did not grow into another 9/11; thank God George Bush didn’t follow the spineless route of the left.
Oh, and who started this to begin with by training bin Laden, Jack? Do I need to repost what is written in history books?
Peace & God bless,
|
|
|
|
|
RE: War in Iraq - 8/19/2005 11:17:08 PM
|
|
|
JustaChristian
Posts: 43
Joined: 5/20/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
according to the Duelfer report, Hussain was moving towards reestablishing his WMD.
You are taking that out of context Dancre... Here is the rest..
Duelfer:
"We were almost all wrong" on Iraq, Duelfer told a Senate panel yesterday.
President Bush, Vice President Cheney and other top administration officials asserted before the U.S. invasion that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear weapons program, had chemical and biological weapons and maintained links to al Qaeda affiliates to whom it might give such weapons to use against the United States.
But after extensive interviews with Hussein and his key lieutenants, Duelfer concluded that Hussein was not motivated by a desire to strike the United States with banned weapons, but wanted them to enhance his image in the Middle East and to deter Iran, against which Iraq had fought a devastating eight-year war. Hussein believed that "WMD helped save the regime multiple times," the report said. "
Link to rest of the story:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A12115-2004Oct6.html
< Message edited by JustaChristian -- 8/20/2005 3:12:37 AM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: War in Iraq - 8/20/2005 12:31:46 AM
|
|
|
dmber
Posts: 2
Joined: 8/16/2005
Status: offline
|
Quotes from when Clinton committed troops to Bosnia:
"You can support the troops but not the president."
--Rep Tom Delay (R-TX)
"Well, I just think it's a bad idea. What's going to happen is they're going to be over there for 10, 15, maybe 20 years."
--Joe Scarborough (R-FL)
"Explain to the mothers and fathers of American servicemen that may come home in body bags why their son or daughter have to give up their life?"
--Sean Hannity, Fox News, 4/6/99
"[The] President . . . is once again releasing American military might on a foreign country with an ill-defined objective and no exit strategy. He has yet to tell the Congress how much this operation will cost. And he has not informed our nation's armed forces about how long they will be away from home. These strikes do not make for a sound foreign policy."
--Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA)
"American foreign policy is now one huge big mystery. Simply put, the administration is trying to lead the world with a feel-good foreign policy."
--Rep Tom Delay (R-TX)
"If we are going to commit American troops, we must be certain they have a clear mission, an achievable goal and an exit strategy."
--Karen Hughes, speaking on behalf of George W Bush
"I had doubts about the bombing campaign from the beginning . . I didn't think we had done enough in the diplomatic area."
--Senator Trent Lott (R-MS)
"I cannot support a failed foreign policy. History teaches us that it is often easier to make war than peace. This administration is just learning that lesson right now. The President began this mission with very vague objectives and lots of unanswered questions. A month later, these questions are still unanswered. There are no clarified rules of engagement. There is no timetable. There is no legitimate definition of victory. There is no contingency plan for mission creep. There is no clear funding program. There is no agenda to bolster our over-extended military. There is no explanation defining what vital national interests are at stake. There was no strategic plan for war when the President started this thing, and there still is no plan today"
--Rep Tom Delay (R-TX)
"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is."
--Governor George W. Bush (R-TX)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: War in Iraq - 8/20/2005 11:20:49 AM
|
|
|
Lizahana
Posts: 785
Joined: 4/20/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
quote:
When in the forseeable future, does the Bush Administration see an end to this escalating violence? Reliance on an Iraqi police system may look good on paper, but Vietnam showed that you can't depend on the hearts and minds of a people when the majority mistrust American motives.
The problem isn't the 'hearts and minds of the people'; the vast majority of Iraqis support a representative government;
Oh really? Do you think the Iraqis asked us to do this, with the loss of their 25,000 innocent, fellow countrymen, Jack?
it is a consistent drive to crush the outside insurgency, an effort only lessened by the wekness of resolve among the left in our country, who would just as soon abandon the Iraqi's to the foreign insurgency as aid them.
Ah, no. We opposed this war, along with many, many church leaders, many world leaders, dignataries, many Republicans (not just libs opposed this war), billions of people across the globe, from the getgo. If we had not unilaterally invaded Iraq in the first place, the weapons inspectors would have been allowed to finish their jobs, the world would have been able to see: without blowing apart an entire country which caused the loss of 25,000 innocent Iraqi deaths, the loss of 1800+ (I thought it was still 1700+, this sucks) of our best & brightest: the world would have been able to see that Iraq did NOT possess WMD without all this terrible loss of life. God bless their souls. We would not have the insurgency. We would have sent more money to help the people of Sudan, Niger, people without.
Peace & God bless,
|
|
|
|
|
RE: War in Iraq - 8/20/2005 9:15:49 PM
|
|
|
wing2000
Posts: 885
Joined: 4/14/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
the vast majority of Iraqis support a representative government; it is a consistent drive to crush the outside insurgency, an effort only lessened by the wekness of resolve among the left in our country, who would just as soon abandon the Iraqi's to the foreign insurgency as aid them.
Jack,
If the "insurgency" was only from the "outside", it would have been crushed months ago. An insurgency can only survive with the cooperation and support of elements within the local population.
The fact is, there are outside jihadists in Iraq and resistence from within --a minotity, but enough to sustain insurgent operations. The Bush adminstration assumed there would be no resistance and had no plan in place to fight an insurgency. They really sent the wrong signal from day one when looters and other crimes were committed freely while there relatively small invasion force looked on.
< Message edited by gwingert -- 8/20/2005 9:18:31 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: War in Iraq - 8/20/2005 10:11:03 PM
|
|
|
BlackCapnHarlock
Posts: 430
Joined: 8/20/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Goodwill
Are you for it or against it....what is your opinion about the war? do you think we went in with the right intensions? Discuss recent developments and your opinions.
just curious...and please lets remember that we are all (supposed to be) christians here so lets handle our selves like so...I love debate but hate arguing 
Okay, I don't support the war in Iraq, I believe the American people were deceived and that we have made a mess. Our gas prices are through the roof, the weapons of mass destruction in the stockpiles they say they had were not found, we deposed a dictator that we once supported for our political gain (I love the picture of him shaking hands with Rumsfield) Hussein was a butcher, but thtat's the reason we were given for going to wary. WMD's, ties ti Al Qeada, I didn't believe it then and now more and more folks don't believe it now.
I personally think Bush should resign over the Iraq failure, that's my personal opinion. If he believes in the Iraq war so much, why don't he send his daughters to the front line to war? If it's that just of a cause he should be willing to put them on the front lines, in the war front.
Also, while Bush keeps talking about invading Iraq and making our nation safe, our nation is over run with street gangs. I am a cop ya'll and man gangs have it so that folks can't even leave their homes and are in terror in their homes, they got guns and we got a south west border that isn't secure at all, these games from Mexico and South America, the Ms-13,
Nuestra Familia and Sorenos, espeically Sorenos those guys are violent and don't play.
Bush should secure our border before needlessly invading a country. I miss the old days when guys like Alex the Great and Agustus Ceasar went to war with their troops and led from the front, if we had that system, there would be a lot less war. Send our troops home,
no more lives for lies.
If Clinton did something like this he would be worse than ridiculed by the Right.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: War in Iraq - 8/21/2005 12:41:16 PM
|
|
|
jgarden
Posts: 62
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
Why should the average Iraqi have any trust or respect for US intervention?
It was America and Britian who manipulated governments for decades to allow oil exports with little revenue going to the people.
t was America who supported Sadaam with military resources when he was fighting Iran.
It was America who encouraged Iraqi citizens to revolt, only to watch them being massacred by Sadaam's Republican Guard.
The Iraqi people may have hated Sadaam, but at least he kept the country from degenerating into anarchy
|
|
|
|
|
RE: War in Iraq - 8/22/2005 1:25:12 AM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 6817
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: offline
|
quote:
When Bush announced we were going to war with Iraq it was for regime change. Now he says we are there to spread democracy.
And how else should the US bring about regime change, install a new dictator? The Iraqi's seemed pretty enthusiatic about democracy in the last election.
_____________________________
Jack
“I mean to live my life an obedient man, but obedient to God, subservient to the wisdom of my ancestors; never to the authority of political truths arrived at yesterday at the voting booth”
William F. Buckley Jr. 1925-2008
|
|
|
|
|
RE: War in Iraq - 8/22/2005 10:01:56 AM
|
|
|
haldir
Posts: 559
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
Over 4 million Iraqis voted in the January elections. Yep, it sure does seem like they don't want a representative republic.
_____________________________
Haldir
|
|
|
|
|
RE: War in Iraq - 8/22/2005 10:27:03 AM
|
|
|
Flojo1
Posts: 70
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Lizahana
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
quote:
quote:
3. The Duefler is based on circumstantial evidence. The 9/11 Commission contradicts it. Saddam may have very well have been working on a weapons program but the onus was on the Bush Administration is to produce the evidence.
I love it; the left always refers to Duelfer when it agrees with what they believe, but dismisses it when it doesn’t.
In light of the past few weeks in the news I am amazed that anyone is putting stock in the 9/11 Commission. Personally, I think it's a huge Clinton cover-up.
Iraq--what a puzzle--they want democracy--voted for it and now I heard this morning their constitution says there needs to be Islamic clerics on their SC. ??? I think these people are very confused. I hope they can sort is out. If Iraq is ruled by Islamic law, this war was all in vain.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: War in Iraq - 8/23/2005 8:45:58 AM
|
|
|
rlj
Posts: 1744
Joined: 4/14/2005
Status: online
| | |
Forum Tools
Printable Version
RE: War in Iraq - 
RE: War in Iraq - 
