|
Post by killer on Jan 25, 2007 15:49:18 GMT -5
What is it exactly in Iraq? Was it initially to go after the WMDs? Is it now to help the different groups there to get along? Is it to stabilize the area and have some sort of control there because of oil?
Sorry to have to ask. But it has gotten confusing.
|
|
|
Post by solinvictus on Jan 25, 2007 21:41:57 GMT -5
1) It's a multi-ethnic hodgepodge created out of the wake of the British Empire, which leads to.. 2) Sectarian and ethnic tensions exist throughout the country between Shia and Sunni, Arab and Kurd and Persian, and on a micro level, factional fights dating back to familial tribes, which led to... 3) Baathism; a pan-Arab socialist movement which originated in post-WW2 Arab nations to strengthen unit across national boundaries, which led to.. 4) Various nations in the Middle East were chosen (or chose) teams during the Cold War. Via CIA coup, Iraq wound up on our side, which led to.. 5) Essentially, Baathists took control via direct authoritarian rule characterized by coup; during the late 1970's, a Baathist political mover named... 4)...Saddam Hussein; took power from his predecessor and embarked on an ambitious course of modernization and brutal oppression of political, religious, and ethnic opponents. He hates the Shiite Persians under Ayatollah Khomeini, so with material aid and intelligence both supplied by the US, he invades Iran. 5) Things go poorly for Saddam as the invasion stalled and the conflict became modernized static trench warfare. At home and abroad, Hussein uses chemical weapons that were developed with aid from Ronald Regan and his emissary, Donald Rumsfeld. 6) After the war, Iraq's toast. Domestically, all the aid loans have come due and there's increased opposition due to Saddam's loss of the war. To save both situations, Hussein invades Kuwait after running the idea by the American ambassador to the region. 7) Gulf War 1: we know how that ended. 8) Years of sanctions, El Presidente declares Iraq to be part of the 9/11 attacks and uses this, along with WMD and human rights, and a justification to invade Iraq. Now, four years later, we're stuck with a war that costs over $8-10 billion we don't have to prosecute.
What's going on in Iraq now? Simply put, a political power vacuum. Sure, Saddam killed thousands of his own people, but it would seem that he did so to keep the lid on the pressure cooker. Is it cold and inhuman to say that? Yep, but it's practical. We've created a power vacuum in Iraq that will do nothing but benefit Iran's Shiite nutjobs as they keep the pot stirred inside the borders of their former rival.
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on Jan 25, 2007 22:44:07 GMT -5
Your pretty accurate except for #8.
To justify the war, Bush informed Congress on March 19, 2003 that acting against Iraq was consistent with “continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.”
That does not imply that Iraq was involved in 9/11, just that the same organizations and/or people that were, will be affected by the actions in Iraq.
That turned out to be the case and who knows currently what full effect it will have on those groups.
You also forgot about the U.N. resolutions in number #8 as well.
Saddam killed thousands? Minimum, tens of thousands and without looking it up, probably hundreds of thousands. The tortures, human paper shredding and his son's rapes could be argued as not being practical to keeping a lid on factions hating his faction.
|
|
|
Post by Twista on Jan 26, 2007 1:06:22 GMT -5
The reason we invaded Iraq? Pretty simple really... Bush couldn't remember if the name ended with a "Q" or an "N", so he went by the alphabet...
(He got that one wrong too... LOL)
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on Jan 26, 2007 1:55:09 GMT -5
While all other stupid people have reached the pinnacle of success, Bush has only managed to become the President of the greatest nation on earth, twice...what a dunce. He must be an idiot savant. How in the world was he capable of remembering a 50+ minute speech. It must have been special CG effects interlaced with THX.
|
|
|
Post by Twista on Jan 26, 2007 4:13:50 GMT -5
"He must be an idiot savant." I'd agree with half of that statement... LOL " It must have been special CG effects interlaced with THX." Actually it was forced perspective camera work... Cheney was a lot closer to the podium, and if you look carefully, you could see his arm sticking through the back of Bush's jacket... His lips barely moved... (Kind of a defining theme of the whole presidency... LOL)
|
|
|
Post by killer on Jan 26, 2007 10:00:42 GMT -5
If I heard right this morning on news, a leader (maybe commander or something) in the Army said they were going after any "anti-government" types.
Makes me wonder... If there were ever an uprising within our country... like if people finally decided to rise up against the government... and another country's forces came in to "aid" our government, would those who went against the government, wanting change, be killed or taken as hostages?
What if those who were wanting the changes were right? Like... what if they had good reason to rise up?
|
|
|
Post by jonathant on Jan 26, 2007 12:15:19 GMT -5
If people supported those who wanted change, they would back those who wanted change. However, the US Armed Forces would most likely be called against the rebellious citizens (as is provided by the Constitution), and any country willing to entangle itself with such rebellion might not be so excited about the consequences.
Save the "military belongs to the people" deal. Like it or not, they're government employees.
|
|
|
Post by jonathant on Jan 26, 2007 12:16:33 GMT -5
The purpose nowadays is to clean up our mess. The leaders of our country (I believe) don't want to be responsible for the total destruction of a bunch of livelihoods.
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on Jan 26, 2007 16:26:22 GMT -5
While all other stupid people have reached the pinnacle of success, Bush has only managed to become the President of the greatest nation on earth, twice...what a dunce. He must be an idiot savant. How in the world was he capable of remembering a 50+ minute speech. It must have been special CG effects interlaced with THX. The Left's vicious hatred of President Bush paints them into some very interesting logical corners. The Left loves to raise the canard that Bush is an idiot and a dunce, yet the candidates they chose to run against him either flunked out of divinity school (Gore) or had worse grades than Bush did (Kerry). Yet somehow this "dunce" was able to orchestrate the greatest foreign policy conspiracy ever- convincing all these "smarter than the av-er-age bear" Democrats to given him totally unrestricted war powers using falsified intelligence. He even somehow convinced many of these same Democrats to agree with his position before he ever took office, as evidenced by their statements while Clinton was President. I suppose Bush even managed to convince Democrats to run two substandard candidates against him so that he could set up his own fascist dictatorship here in AmeriKKKa. That Bush....he has a really great head on his shoulders....especially for an idiot.
|
|
|
Post by solinvictus on Jan 26, 2007 19:42:20 GMT -5
..someone mentioned an interesting point; who's side would our armed forces support if we had a general uprising in this nation? Let's evaluate some scenarioes: if Georgia suddenly decided they'd had enough of the federal state and violently seceded, would the central government in Washington DC refuse to use force out of consideration for human rights? For that matter, would our government back down when faced with any mass insurrection of armed US citizens?
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on Jan 26, 2007 20:22:19 GMT -5
..someone mentioned an interesting point; who's side would our armed forces support if we had a general uprising in this nation? Let's evaluate some scenarioes: if Georgia suddenly decided they'd had enough of the federal state and violently seceded, would the central government in Washington DC refuse to use force out of consideration for human rights? For that matter, would our government back down when faced with any mass insurrection of armed US citizens? That is a most interesting scenario, isn't it? I hate to cheese out and say "it depends" but I think it would depend on what the circumstances were. Is it a overwhelming national disaster in which central government breaks down but not before it has issues lawful orders to be carried out by the military and national guard? Is it a coup d'etat staged by an unstable political leader? Is it the result of an act of war (WMD strike)? Hate to say it, but watching the second season of "Jericho" might give us all some insight.
|
|
|
Post by killer on Jan 27, 2007 20:53:26 GMT -5
womi,
What is our mission in Iraq? I ask you because you seem to be the GWB spokesperson here or the Republicans can do no wrong ever ever ever guy.
So maybe you can nutshell our purpose there for those of us who are confused.
Not asking for a lengthy commentary. Just a simple answer as to what is our mission in Iraq.
Thank you.
|
|
|
Post by solinvictus on Jan 27, 2007 21:04:24 GMT -5
I'd like to know too, but we've created a power vacuum that's going to be filled by Iran or an Iranian proxy in Iraq. Sometimes, it's better to stick with the devil you know rather than to leave things to happenstance like this administration's foreign policy.
|
|
|
Post by killer on Jan 27, 2007 21:15:03 GMT -5
What will it mean for us when that power vacuum is filled by Iranians?
|
|
|
Post by solinvictus on Jan 27, 2007 23:21:30 GMT -5
What will it mean for us when that power vacuum is filled by Iranians? ...we will have stepped into some Shiite which we'll never be able to clean off our boots.
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on Jan 28, 2007 15:01:56 GMT -5
womi, What is our mission in Iraq? I ask you because you seem to be the GWB spokesperson here or the Republicans can do no wrong ever ever ever guy. So maybe you can nutshell our purpose there for those of us who are confused. Not asking for a lengthy commentary. Just a simple answer as to what is our mission in Iraq. Thank you. While you greatly misrepresent my position on President Bush- not only you, mind, but most people that oppose the President accuse those who ocasionally or even a majority of the time do support him of blind obeisance- I'm glad to once again answer this question. Here's why we went to war in Iraq: www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.htmlThe above is a link to the actual wording of the 2002 Joint Congressional to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq. You'll find TWENTY TWO separate and distinct justifications for our effort in Iraq. Interestingly, only three even mention WMDs, which is the justification the Left has seized upon to discredit the effort- conveniently forgetting in the process that the only was we could prove whether Saddam had or didn't have WMDs was to go there and see for ourselves. Saddam wasn't going to tell us the truth- he hadn't in some 12 years to that point so why would anyone expect him to suddently become the Good Neighbor? Once you've had a chance to read and digest just what it was the vast majority of our lawmakers- both Republican and Democrat- actually voted for, I'll be more than happy to elaborate further. Lastly, I'll point out that the policy of regime change in Iraq was put in place by that 'champion' of the people, President William Jefferson Clinton all the way back in 1998. While the Left seems to suffer from what I refer to as "selective amnesia"- they believe that nothing of any consequence in the war on terror occurred before January 20th, 2001 when George W. Bush took office, I think the record must be made straight, else conclusions drawn from flawed premises will inevitably be as flawed as the premises themselves.
|
|
|
Post by killer on Jan 28, 2007 16:28:04 GMT -5
I was hoping for something a blue collar like myself could understand. Oh well.
So I read the legislation(or whatever) -- looks like we went there because of WMDs and to look for terrorists. Hence, "The War On Terror."
How many terrorists are dead vs. innocent Iraqis? 1:1000?
|
|
|
Post by Twista on Jan 28, 2007 19:58:02 GMT -5
Well, I was curious about this too, and did some "googling" for the answer... I found this page at Whitehouse.org that should clear up most people's questions about the war and the administration's motives and reasons for going to war... whitehouse.org/news/2003/030603.asp
|
|
|
Post by killer on Jan 28, 2007 20:16:46 GMT -5
Funny website! Check out the gift shop! (How about the bumber sticker that says, "Wake me in 2008 if anyone is still alive!")
Oh... sorry... back to Terror... The War on Terror. I'm really sick of hearing that... but we are supposed to be programmed by now to say that in about every other sentence.
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on Jan 28, 2007 22:47:28 GMT -5
Lessee....
Twenty three separate and distinct justifications for going into Iraq and you STILl can't see past WMDs?
Sorry, but that's just willful ignorance on your part. You just aren't willing to see the truth about The Mission because you don't want your preceonceived agenda- that boils down to "I Hate Bush!"- challenged.
You wanted an honest and truthful answer and I gave it to you, not interjecting my own opinions in any way. You have every right to object to or disagree with my opinions, but the Authorization is the unequivocal and factual basis for our involvement in Iraq. You might not like the truth, but it is the truth.
Now I'll be more than glad to offer that truth buttressed by my opinion but, since you wanted the Reader's Digest version, I refrained.
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on Jan 28, 2007 22:48:38 GMT -5
Aren't responses like this one WILD? ONE can only imagine the thought process that go into them.
|
|
|
Post by killer on Jan 29, 2007 13:16:51 GMT -5
Willful ignorance? I read the damn resolution. It boils down to WMDs and terrorists as cause for the WAR. Does that not nutshell the mission? Is that an "ignorant" assessment, smart ass?
|
|
|
Post by MiddleOfTheRoader on Jan 29, 2007 16:00:05 GMT -5
Section regarding Iraq in 2003 State Of the Union address (prior to invasion of Iraq):
Orange = Weapons of Mass Destruction inference RED = Some terrorist Ties GREEN = Humanitarian
After reading this excerpt of the 2003 State of the Union speech regarding our reasoning according to the President of going into Iraq, I wonder why those silly Dems/68% still harp about Weapons of Mass Destruction too ... Good grief, anyone can tell that the weapons were just a minor roll in our going to Iraq...sheesh.
|
|
|
Post by MOTR on Jan 29, 2007 17:05:44 GMT -5
Also, the links above about the resolution: www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html(one of them) It is my understading that they authorized the President the powers to go to war. They did not declare war on Iraq as many conservative news stations try to brandish. If One read many of the comments/dissertations by senators of supporting votes. They state several reasons as to their go votes, majority of which are not in hopes of the President actually using the authority but rather using it as a "big stick", if One will. Many of them actually state that they are signing on only as a measure to send a "global message of unity" that if all diplomatic means fail, then we stand behind the President in order to stop the threat that Iraq poses. If One are unsure of the difference of granting authority to use force and declaring war, this vote probably seems obscure and similar. But constitutionally they are very different. For example, the President can declare martial law if needed. However, if a section of the highway between Birmingham and Montgomery has a high fatality rate, that in no way entitles him to do so, even though the authority has been granted. Sure enough, this is vastly different. But the Iraq situation was not unique on its face. Presidents have been privy to such resolutions throughout history to send a message that "we are serious". Generally, though, this was used as a bargaining chip and ended in diplomatic means, in worst case scenarios in minor skirmishes, but only after years of intel. gathering...not after 4 months, as was used in Iraq. One might reply with something like, well if One didn't want to use it why have it? But then the conversation would degenerate into a cold-war allusion and perhaps another quote from me about "Talk softly with a big stick", etc. Which will not resolve the fact that this political maneuver is not unique to Iraq, but was in effect used unwisely and prematurely. Then I am almost sure the conversation would resonate somewhere to how come Dems (just guessing that One'd assume I was a Dem), supported a major troop influx at the beginning of the war and now want a phased withdrawal. And to curb this answer I'd probably use my parable of the pregnant woman, being that I am southern and we love our off color parables. "So this man was about to know this lady he met. A friend told him One really should use protection. The man failed to listen. The lady gets pregnant. The friend told him well now One should marry her. The guy said I decided to used protection." Needless to say One can't go back to when the protection would have been useful. So One work from here. Back 3 years ago, a substantial ground force would have helped quell a civil war and insurgency. Now that civil war has broken out (please let's not argue over semantics), it's a bit late to prevent it from happening. So, the Dem proposal, and I somewhat agree, is to set deadlines for the Iraqi government that is based on our withdrawal of troops, not the other way around. Essentially, it is teaching them my most favorite conservative premise, which is personal responsibility... the foundation for any representative republic/democracy.
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on Jan 29, 2007 17:25:59 GMT -5
MOTR -
If that was the case, then why didn't they cry foul when we actually went to war? I don't recall any of the Congressmen/Congresswomen coming out and saying, "Hey, we didn't authorize you to actually do anything..blah..blah..blah."
They didn't. They voted and gave the President the authorization to use force. They either didn't read the resolution they voted yes on or they are using their reasons for voting yes as a fall back measure if things didn't go "right". Either way, it's their vote and their fault if they didn't read the resolution or if they understood it to mean something else. They should have got clarification. Their just covering their as*ses in case their constant sabotaging of the war effort some how worked. Which it has.
|
|
|
Post by MOTR on Jan 29, 2007 18:15:52 GMT -5
MOTR -
If that was the case, then why didn't they cry foul when we actually went to war? I don't recall any of the Congressmen/Congresswomen coming out and saying, "Hey, we didn't authorize you to actually do anything..blah..blah..blah."
They didn't. They voted and gave the President the authorization to use force. They either didn't read the resolution they voted yes on or they are using their reasons for voting yes as a fall back measure if things didn't go "right". Either way, it's their vote and their fault if they didn't read the resolution or if they understood it to mean something else. They should have got clarification. Their just covering their as*ses in case their constant sabotaging of the war effort some how worked. Which it has. You are mistaken if this is what you understand or perhaps you didn't read their responses. I know one favorite "pick on" Dem that supposedly voted for the war is Hillary. Here is her response: clinton.senate.gov/speeches/iraq_101002.htmlIn particular this simple excerpt which is widely echoed amongst the "Yea" voters: A vote for it is not a vote to rush to war; it is a vote that puts awesome responsibility in the hands of our President and we say to him - use these powers wisely and as a last resort. This also outlined the most popular option accepted at the time of diplomacy and alliance building... Not a small feat and definitely one that can be accomplished in 4 months. Perhaps you should go back and read each senator's response prior to simply shrugging off the concerns and reasoning behind the resolution and its votes, making assumptions on the partial truth or ignoring the actual facts.
|
|
|
Post by MOTR on Jan 29, 2007 18:19:09 GMT -5
MisTYPE: Not a small feat and definitely one that can be accomplished in 4 months. SHOULD READ: Not a small feat and definitely one that cannot be accomplished in 4 months.
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on Jan 29, 2007 18:37:49 GMT -5
I'll look into it further but if I just went on by what you said, it's hypocritical of them. They lambast the President when he writes signing statements. As far as her statement. I like the part were she outlines the reasons for action and states, "Now this much is undisputed." She now claims, that the President lied to her though they both came to the same conclusion BASED on the evidence that she says is undisputed. "A vote for it is not a vote to rush to war; it is a vote that puts awesome responsibility in the hands of our President and we say to him - use these powers wisely and as a last resort."Let's see, the vote was on October 2002 and the actual invasion began on March of 2003, that is just shy of 5 months. I don't see how that could considered a rush to war. He did use the war powers as a last resort because he went one more time to the U.N. to get them to do something and the majority refused to act upon their own ultimatums detailed in the resolutions. Speaking of Hillary, here she talking to Code "Fruit cakes" Pink 2 weeks before the war. Her comments don't match her senate floor speech. www.youtube.com/watch?v=pYATbsu2cP8Classic! She parallels the need for action in Iraq with Bosnia. Then when the crowd get's hostile...she abandons reason and starts to talk about economics to sidetrack the discussion....Ten more minutes and she would have been on the table. I doubt it highly that she would ever meet with them again after that! LOL.
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on Jan 29, 2007 20:25:52 GMT -5
By what standards do you judge that 11 years and the violation of seventeen UN resolutions constitutes a "rush to war"?
Remember: it was incumbent on Saddam Hussein to comply with the requirements of the 1991 Gulf war cease-fire agreement and the tenets of the various United Nations resolutions. Hussein's failure to comply with any one of them- much less all seventeen of them- constituted a lawful and moral justification for the resumption of the 1991 war and the implementation of the Clinton policy of regime change in Iraq.
If Bush made any error at all, it was that he actually expected the feckless debating society that is the United Nations to put some teeth into their own demands. Why would they? Saddam was paying many of them off to the tune of billions of dollars while the Iraqis starved. But hey....business is business.
|
|