Iraq can thank George Bush

[rjd970]

You need to be more specific instead of just saying was no threat. Before the first gulf war they boasted the third or fourth largest army in the world IIRC.

After GWI they were no real threat to anybody. The government was tyrannical, but so are any number of other governments.

They were in violation of UN sanctions, and maybe harboring terrorists. Reason enough to invade post 9/11.

The WMD stuff was bogus and pretending they were any significant worlwide threat is fantasy.

 

[BigPapaVol]

The WMD stuff was bogus and pretending they were any significant worlwide threat is fantasy.

Exact same thing can be said of Afghanistan.

 

[KB5252]

After GWI they were no real threat to anybody. The government was tyrannical, but so are any number of other governments.
Can't argue.
They were in violation of UN sanctions, and maybe harboring terrorists. Reason enough to invade post 9/11.
I agree here.
The WMD stuff was bogus and pretending they were any significant worlwide threat is fantasy.

Just pointing out that in order to get the point across without any argument it needed to be more specific.

 

[rjd970]

Exact same thing can be said of Afghanistan.

Afghanistan was actually harboring and training the guys that attacked us. It was retaliatory in every sense.

Iraq was/is a different monster altogether, and no way any action against them could have been justified without the astronomical approval ratings Bush enjoyed post 9/11.

 

[BigPapaVol]

Afghanistan was actually harboring and training the guys that attacked us. It was retaliatory in every sense.

Iraq was/is a different monster altogether, and no way any action against them could have been justified without the astronomical approval ratings Bush enjoyed post 9/11.

Were those guys a true threat to anyone's sovereignty?

It was retaliatory, but it still hasn't done anything to secure the US.

I'd much rather destabilize a regime like Hussein's, who clearly would have funded terror and figured out WMD over a backward country of tribes and cavemen.

 

[MG1968]

After GWI they were no real threat to anybody. The government was tyrannical, but so are any number of other governments.

They were in violation of UN sanctions, and maybe harboring terrorists. Reason enough to invade post 9/11.

The WMD stuff was bogus and pretending they were any significant worlwide threat is fantasy.

tell that to the Kurds.

 

[rjd970]

Were those guys a true threat to anyone's sovereignty?

It doesn't matter, they gave refuge to the guys that killed 3000 americans. Afghanistan was never about the threat they posed to anybody.

I'd much rather destabilize a regime like Hussein's, who clearly would have funded terror and figured out WMD over a backward country of tribes and cavemen.

What makes Iraq different in this regard than any other country in the Middle East? Why Iraq over Iran, who btw, has actually made it government policy to fund terrorism and is by all accounts further along in its WMD programs?

 

[rjd970]

tell that to the Kurds.

So by that reasoning, I guess your in favor of freeing the Tibetan Bhuddists from Chinese rule? Give me a break. After GWI we could have not cared less about the Kurds and we actually encouraged them to rise up and then left hem on their own to get slaughtered. Now all of a sudden they are justification for taking out Saddam?

 

[BigPapaVol]

What makes Iraq different in this regard than any other country in the Middle East? Why Iraq over Iran, who btw, has actually made it government policy to fund terrorism and is by all accounts further along in its WMD programs?

Iran gives us an actionable reason to wipe Tehran off the world, we're likely to take it. Right now, the UN would laugh us out of NY.

 

[KB5252]

It doesn't matter, they gave refuge to the guys that killed 3000 americans. Afghanistan was never about the threat they posed to anybody.




What makes Iraq different in this regard than any other country in the Middle East? Why Iraq over Iran, who btw, has actually made it government policy to fund terrorism and is by all accounts further along in its WMD programs?

Iraq was deal that could be sold to the international community as well as the public in America. Had we tried to invade Iran the international community would not have even entertained the idea. By going into Iraq we would accomplish three things:1) Finish the job that was started in GW1 2) Establish a second front in the "War on terror" and force extremists to engage us there and in Afghanistan. 3) Put pressure on Iran by having forward bases and resources at their back door.

 

[KB5252]

So by that reasoning, I guess your in favor of freeing the Tibetan Bhuddists from Chinese rule? Give me a break. After GWI we could have not cared less about the Kurds and we actually encouraged them to rise up and then left hem on their own to get slaughtered. Now all of a sudden they are justification for taking out Saddam?

We actually thought that the Kurds and the Shia would depose Saddam and finish the job we started. We were wrong.

 

[MG1968]

So by that reasoning, I guess your in favor of freeing the Tibetan Bhuddists from Chinese rule? Give me a break. After GWI we could have not cared less about the Kurds and we actually encouraged them to rise up and then left hem on their own to get slaughtered. Now all of a sudden they are justification for taking out Saddam?

hey, you're the one who claimed Saddam wasn't a threat to ANYBODY.

 

[rjd970]

Iran gives us an actionable reason to wipe Tehran off the world, we're likely to take it. Right now, the UN would laugh us out of NY.

What exactly would be an "actionable reason", given the stated reasons we went in Iraq?

WMD's? Check.

Terrorism Support? Check.

Defying UN resolutions? Check.

Human rights violations? Check.

Add to this list they are actively and publicly devloping missiles with which to strike NATO countries, and could carry said WMD's, and the threat is at least equal, if not more.

Bush, for whatever reason, had Iraq on his agenda from day one. 9/11 gave him the workable excuse he needed. The simple fact of the matter is while Iraq may have been a threat, and needed to be delt with, there were any other number of countries that should have been ranked higher in the "possible threat" category that we could have also ran over in 3 weeks.

 

[BigPapaVol]

What exactly would be an "actionable reason", given the stated reasons we went in Iraq?

WMD's? Check.

Terrorism Support? Check.

Defying UN resolutions? Check.

Human rights violations? Check.

Add to this list they are actively and publicly devloping missiles with which to strike NATO countries, and could carry said WMD's, and the threat is at least equal, if not more.

Bush, for whatever reason, had Iraq on his agenda from day one. 9/11 gave him the workable excuse he needed. The simple fact of the matter is while Iraq may have been a threat, and needed to be delt with, there were any other number of countries that should have been ranked higher in the "possible threat" category that we could have also ran over in 3 weeks.

Iraq shot at us daily and defied every UN resolution ever passed.

Iran is a long way from that and we might have recently learned that an overblown tyrant full of bluster is simply - full of bluster. If they were legitimately close to nukes, they wouldn't need to be spouting about it.

 

[rjd970]

Iraq shot at us daily and defied every UN resolution ever passed.

Iran is a long way from that and we might have recently learned that an overblown tyrant full of bluster is simply - full of bluster. If they were legitimately close to nukes, they wouldn't need to be spouting about it.

OK.

...but remember, you said this:

I'd much rather destabilize a regime like Hussein's, who clearly would have funded terror and figured out WMD over a backward country of tribes and cavemen.

...and I am saying if it is terror and WMD's, Iraq was not as big a threat as compared to others.

Iran is not that far off with it attacking U.S. ships in the gulf and kidnapping British sailors. Not to mention the open and tacit support it is giving Hamas and Hezbollah. And as far as its nuclear program goes, Iran can match Iraq sin for sin with how it has handled U.N. resolutions.

 

[BigPapaVol]

OK.

...but remember, you said this:



...and I am saying if it is terror and WMD's, Iraq was not as big a threat as compared to others.

Iran is not that far off with it attacking U.S. ships in the gulf and kidnapping British sailors. Not to mention the open and tacit support it is giving Hamas and Hezbollah. And as far as its nuclear program goes, Iran can match Iraq sin for sin with how it has handled U.N. resolutions.

I said what I said and stick to it, but those are past actions. When Iran steps far enough over the line, I'm totally an advocate of wiping out their theocracy. I don't view Hamas and Hezbollah as serious threats to anything. They have to have funding from the ME theocracies to exist. They are little more than very bad puppet organizations with little, if any, ability to really do anything. They certainly aren't a thread to world stability or ME peace.

 

[SavageOrangeJug]

No need to rehash the reasons for going into Iraq. Fact is, we did.

We won! End of story.

 

[f1ip]

Over the course of the war.

1. We crushed their military forces.
2. We hung the bad guy.
3. Fewer Americans suffered violent deaths last week in Iraq, than on the streets of most major cities.
4. Large scale free elections last Saturday in Iraq.

It must suck to be a liberal, and have to suffer through an American victory.

1. Really? You get that warm and fuzzy feeling when a donkey cart is overtaken by a M1 Abrams. The words Iraq and military forces used in the same sentence is foolish, its nothing to brag about with the technology we have.

2. The Iraqi's hung him according to Bush. Check your facts before you post such rubbish.

3. WTF??? You mean the war was not over in when Bush held the "Mission Accomplished" ceremony. Can we expect you to move to Iraq now?

4. I agree with ya here. I guess its the radical centralist in me. The test will be if they maintain their democracy or slide back to a dictatorship.

You are an outlier spewing your slanted perspective, nothing more.



p.s. Hey righty, Obama is coming after your taxes dollars.

 

[SWIL]

FACT: We won in Iraq. Free elections tomorrow.

FACT: That galls the liberals who declared defeat in Iraq.

Your closed mind, refuses to allow you accept the success. Your hypocrisy is laughable.

What's the over/under on how long this puppet government will last?

 

[allvol123]

What's the over/under on how long this puppet government will last?

Puppet? Who is really pulling the strings?

 

[BigPapaVol]

What's the over/under on how long this puppet government will last?

You mean Obama? If so, 4 years.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[onlyut4me]

Winning a war that he started under false pretenses against a country that could barely defend themselves? All hail George Bush then! I guess I could beat up the kid in the wheelchair down the street to get that kind of sense of accomplishment.

false pretenses?
-28 un resolutions that were broken by hussein. somebody had to make him pay for his actions. you don't think the u.n. would do it do you?
-intelligence from every recognizable government around the world said he had wmd's. not just us. dems in congress had the privilege of seeing the same intelligence as GW. they came to the same conclusion as him. hindsight is a great thing isn't it.
-genocide. hussein killed nearly 2 million of his own people while in power.
- numerous torture and rape prisons found in iraq.
- many more crimes against humanity while he was in power.

like it or not the united states is the big dog on the block. we must do what is right, regardless of whether or not anyone else is willing to do so. appeasement does not work. this has been proven over and over again. our new administration has not study history very closely. negotiation only works when done from a position of power. once again our new administration has not study history very closely.

 

[TreeGreen]

false pretenses?
-28 un resolutions that were broken by hussein. somebody had to make him pay for his actions. you don't think the u.n. would do it do you?
-intelligence from every recognizable government around the world said he had wmd's. not just us. dems in congress had the privilege of seeing the same intelligence as GW. they came to the same conclusion as him. hindsight is a great thing isn't it.
-genocide. hussein killed nearly 2 million of his own people while in power.
- numerous torture and rape prisons found in iraq.
- many more crimes against humanity while he was in power.

like it or not the united states is the big dog on the block. we must do what is right, regardless of whether or not anyone else is willing to do so. appeasement does not work. this has been proven over and over again. our new administration has not study history very closely. negotiation only works when done from a position of power. once again our new administration has not study history very closely.

Look, those are all fantastic results, but to couch Bush as this great liberating humanitarian is sort of odd. He focused our aggression on Saddam after 9/11, on a group that posed no real threat to the US directly, but were opportunistic in that their leader was widely known as bonkers and held a strategic middle-east position. The "looming threat" of all of his military power (of which he apparently had none) was the reason we asked our men and women to go to war. The most disturbing part about it is the man that yelled from the mountain tops about how "everyone knows Iraq has WMD's" apparently didn't care that his intelligence was wrong.

I mean, that's fantastic, let's just ignore the gorilla in the corner because we liberated Iraq. I'm happy for the Iraqi people, but the next time someone convinces the US we need to go to war how can we be sure our intelligence is even accurate? How can we be sure we aren't just being mislead? I mean, if Bush had come out and said "You know what? Saddam is an a-hole and the only reason we're going to war is to liberate Iraq" or "we need the middle-east for strategic reasons (although I doubt people around the globe would have agreed with us going in for oil or military presence)" at least then something about the whole process may have been truthful. But what was this war for? Have we stopped terrorism? Have we realized our intelligence agencies need a shake-down? Sitting around throwing flowers in the air about liberating a people who were secondary at best in the intent of our actions is too convenient. Also, this comment about "every intelligence agency" isn't really correct either, even if Colin Powell and John McCain told you it is. The UN lead investigator said there was no smoking gun, State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) said we didn't have a compelling case, the Department of Energy questioned some of the assumptions, International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) chief basically said the same thing as the UN investigators, and not to mention that we were the only country with the only leader insisting that we go to war.

I'll put it this way, if Iraq really is a strategic military position just tell me that. Misleading the American public, or failing to collect information that is critical to your assertions, sets a bad political precedent for putting our military in danger. It is only compounded when you chose to ignore the intelligence gorilla sitting on your desk staring at you everyday.

 

[therealUT]

Look, those are all fantastic results, but to couch Bush as this great liberating humanitarian is sort of odd. He focused our aggression on Saddam after 9/11, on a group that posed no real threat to the US directly, but were opportunistic in that their leader was widely known as bonkers and held a strategic middle-east position. The "looming threat" of all of his military power (of which he apparently had none) was the reason we asked our men and women to go to war. The most disturbing part about it is the man that yelled from the mountain tops about how "everyone knows Iraq has WMD's" apparently didn't care that his intelligence was wrong.

I mean, that's fantastic, let's just ignore the gorilla in the corner because we liberated Iraq. I'm happy for the Iraqi people, but the next time someone convinces the US we need to go to war how can we be sure our intelligence is even accurate? How can we be sure we aren't just being mislead? I mean, if Bush had come out and said "You know what? Saddam is an a-hole and the only reason we're going to war is to liberate Iraq" or "we need the middle-east for strategic reasons (although I doubt people around the globe would have agreed with us going in for oil or military presence)" at least then something about the whole process may have been truthful. But what was this war for? Have we stopped terrorism? Have we realized our intelligence agencies need a shake-down? Sitting around throwing flowers in the air about liberating a people who were secondary at best in the intent of our actions is too convenient. Also, this comment about "every intelligence agency" isn't really correct either, even if Colin Powell and John McCain told you it is. The UN lead investigator said there was no smoking gun, State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) said we didn't have a compelling case, the Department of Energy questioned some of the assumptions, International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) chief basically said the same thing as the UN investigators, and not to mention that we were the only country with the only leader insisting that we go to war.

I'll put it this way, if Iraq really is a strategic military position just tell me that. Misleading the American public, or failing to collect information that is critical to your assertions, sets a bad political precedent for putting our military in danger. It is only compounded when you chose to ignore the intelligence gorilla sitting on your desk staring at you everyday.

When the Department of Energy, IAEA, UN, and INR have a serious mission to ensure the physical security of the US and it's national and strategic interests, then I will read their reports. Until then, I will stick with intel corroborrated by the CIA, British Intel, French Intel, German Intel, and Russian Intel. To do otherwise, would display gross negligence.

I find it oddly ironic how you talk of misleading people. Read GWB's address in October 2002. He lays out all of his reasons for taking action against Iraq. If the American public is too lazy too research beyond what is spoon fed them by the mass media, then they deserve to be led into a wars they don't completely agree with.

The men and women whom you speak of do not share your view. Stop trying to exploit my "suffering and sacrifice" to prop up your viewpoint. The majority of American servicemen to not share your resentment of GWB or of the War in Iraq. The majority also have first hand experiences in the country...you, Sir, do not.

 

[SavageOrangeJug]

1. Really? You get that warm and fuzzy feeling when a donkey cart is overtaken by a M1 Abrams. The words Iraq and military forces used in the same sentence is foolish, its nothing to brag about with the technology we have.

2. The Iraqi's hung him according to Bush. Check your facts before you post such rubbish.

3. WTF??? You mean the war was not over in when Bush held the "Mission Accomplished" ceremony. Can we expect you to move to Iraq now?

4. I agree with ya here. I guess its the radical centralist in me. The test will be if they maintain their democracy or slide back to a dictatorship.

You are an outlier spewing your slanted perspective, nothing more.

1. You are correct. They had the fourth largest army in the world, but we destroyed that in the Gulf War. This was a mop up operation on their military.

2. Rubbish? The Iraqi's hung Saddam. I'll give you three guesses who directed them to take such action. First two guesses don't count.

3. Yes, the war by definition of war, was indeed over. We did face a continued guerilla insurgency in our continued presence as occupation forces.

4. We have a forward base on Iran's backdoor. The Western World would be idiotic to give that advantage away. I doubt seriously we will walk away and let it founder.

You are the equivalent of an American terrorist. Spewing your slanted, leftist, propaganda, nothing more.

p.s. Hey righty, Obama is coming after your taxes dollars.

PS: A message for the boss,

vol_freak, the above statement cannot be accurately addressed with the current rules in place. Stating what is painfully obvious about the intelligence level of the poster who made it. Would result in a probable two week ban. Sometimes, we need to be able to call a spade a spade. Thank you for your consideration in this matter.