Community archive

Ask something
Discussion Locked

Some Food For Thought

0 helpful
243 replies

by maxwell edison

Closed to new repliesThis discussion is closed. It stays readable, but it takes no new replies.

This is page 3 of the discussion. Read the opening post

243 replies

by oz_media

You're right, it was the pubilc's fault for letting themselves be mislead. You cannot tell me that political speech writers would possibly NOT notice that a speech was purposely leading.

If it was a big misunderstanding, as in when Mars attacked the Earth, it certainly wasn't a secret misunderstanding, and why didn't the president or anyone else clear up such a mass global misunderstanding? They go well out of thier way to ensure OTHER war related 'misunderstandings'don't go uncorrected, why not a virtual mass hysteria?

As for my agreeing with Saddam's removal, that is where I feel 'your side' and the 'other side' differ the most.

Saddam's removal was not an urgent enough threat to deem instant invasion of the country with no support.

When Bush took it to the table, some country's agreed that as a last resort, Iraq would neeed a regime change, yet inspectors were IN Iraq and suceeding with their tasks as expected.

There was a short time frame given until inspections were deemed complete. Bush rushed to the threat of WMD table and removed inspectors and invaded despite allied wishes.

Do you HAVE to listen to what others say? Of COURSE not. We are not talking about 'eating or sleeping' here, this is an invasion of a hostile nation and not one without world influence or national support. However, in such things as WAR and invading countries, it should be deemed somewhat important what the rest of the world thinks. Afterall you weren't under the greatest risk of attack anyway.

Now as for suggesting that I haven't seen 911. I am from England!! I grew up in a country full of IRA terrorist actions, bombing of a train my mother was suppoed to be on, bombing of the Queens Guard (on horseback)on parade at Hyde park. I have been witness to such events. I understand how terrorism on your own soil feels all too well.

The underlying mistake Bush has made, that thus far Britain has proven true by communicating with the IRA...KNOW THY ENEMY' The Iraq war was poorly planned (although impressively adapted), and poorly justified with poor/unreliable intelligence.

Once again, it is the timing and the justification for instant action that I disagree with, it wasn't URGENT, it could have waited even if just until inspections either finished or didn't finish.

If they did and nothing was found, perhaps a different justification could have been deemed worthy enough due to the fight against terrorism in the world. I think other nations were more intent on finding the rest of the sleeper cells quickly forming as a result of the war in Afghanistan at the time.

And you said it quite well yourself right here:
"Are you saying he should have mentioned the ongoing inspections? As opposed to how the inspectors were booted out of Iraq? If he did that his arguments wouldn't be effective."

Well yes, that would mean his argument was suggestive and intent on a predetermined conclusion of support based on lack of information.

If he didn't have a compelling enough reason to invade a country without pretending things were not going as planned, then he didn't have a reason to invade at all did he? You had nothing to fear apparently.

Even if simply confirming that even though he knew Saddam ONCE had intent on building WMD, and HAD been developing WMD but the inspectors found nothing and he felt other reasons were enough to justify it. But he removed inspectors and went to war.

Sorry for length but I didn't want to add brief answers that could easily be misinterpreted.

by maxwell edison

.
.....closed minded, uninformed, and lack the capacity to understand complicated issues, it doesn't mean the rest of us are. If you were "misled", but others were not, who's the dumb-sh*t?

by Member 25348569

I saw the original interview and read the transcript from your link. At the time, I though TB got his arse kicked by Paxman and the audience and I haven't changed my mind. FYI, that's Paxman's style.

But what's done, is done.

by oz_media

As I said before, you couldn't POSSIBLY be incorrect could you? You see the real picture the rest of the Earth is delusional.

Well perhaps people DID get the worng impression from the public comments the president made, perhaps he should have realized that only the most clever of the world's population, such as yourself, would understand and actually read something into his comments that he hadn't really focused on.

Then again, apparently it is not just me.

I think you'll remember how many of your brothers and sisters were saying the EXACT same thing just shortly after the speeches he made. I think you will probably remember quite a few American peers defending the war to save their families, and how Saddam was going to fry America if he wasn't stopped today.

Perhaps you will notice that this similar useless thought process or lack thereof has been common in millions worldwide.
Like I said before, if this has effected the world the same way the Mars Attack scare did so many years back in the radio days, wouldn't it be in the president's best interests as leader of the people to go in front of the people and reiterate that it was a false and incorrect mass hysteria?

But apparently it is just me, and the rest of the world sees his true motive all along, and therefore I am the only person on Earth who has shown any ill feelings toward the invasion as I am the delusional one who didn't get it. Nobody else believed he was after WMD afterall.

Or is it perhaps the other way around, and YOU heard something that the majority of the world didn't?

by oz_media

IS WWII Germany really a good comparisson?

We didn't really impose our views on Germany as much as we restricted THEM imposing thier changed views on Western Europe.

Hilter rose and attacked the world, he wanted to change Europe and DECLARED WAR upon the world.

WE had no idea about comcentration campes and other repressions he had set upon Jews, other than the obvious on the surface. But he was trying to take over Europe and instill his own biews upon peaaceful countries. He declared WAR.

Saddam for example had not delclared war, nor had he threatened to invade other countries in an attempt to change the world and become a super power.

Nobody complained and everyone came to your side when you were terrorised on 9/11, this was in essence alQaeda declaring war.

But saying that this current issue you are arguing can be compared to instilling your own personal liberties on Germany is far from the same. Germany was instilling IT's views on others and THAT had to be stopped.

by sleepin'dawg

of decending into a maelstrom of justification for the Iraqi War and is thus losing its original focus.
I've been watching this since you unleashed this upon an unsuspecting public and on a Saturday of all times. There must be something in the water or air of Colorado, with all its glorious vistas and recreational facilities, that would make you choose to ignore these and go tilting at figurative windmills especially since you must have had some idea or indication of the hornets nest you would be stirring up. I see you've now aroused the ire of all the bleeding-hearts and their fury is, if nothing else, comical. It is interesting that regardless of justifications for the invasion they seem to all forget certain basic facts.

Fact: WMD. Saddam said he had them and it would have been foolish in the extreme not to believe him as there was every indication that he was trying to acquire a nuclear capability. Many times shipments of materiel necessary to the constuction of reactors or uranium processing were intercepted. An assumption could be made that for every shipment intercepted more were getting through. It was well publicized knowledge that Iraq was shopping around for warheads and nuclear fuel following the breakup of the U.S.S.R.
In the intelligence community the decision was made to err on the side of caution and thus they believed Saddam's claims, especially since he was diverting so much money from the starving population. The question had to be asked, "Where was it going and for what?" Also good old Chemical Ali was romping around broadcasting the effectiveness of his BCW stockpiles and the world had seen the evidence of those when they were used against the Kurds.

Fact: The Arabs have an old expression, "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." Considering the pervasiveness of fundamentalist Islam throughout the region, this MUST be taken into account, along with the fact that Iraq and Syria were/are controlled by groups of the same party. WMD??? Who can authoritatively state for a certainty that these weapons were not moved to a neighboring country??? Hmmm???
Consider, Pakistan, a poverty stricken nation, riddled with fundamentalist Muslims, has a nuclear capability. This extends from generators and fuel processing to weapons and delivery systems. How was all this financed??? Interesting to say the least.

Fact: "Those who forget the lessons of history, will be condemned to repeat them." For example; throughout the twenties and thirties the Nazis secretly rearmed and trained military personnel in Russia which at the time was controlled by the Communists, ostensibly the virulent enemy of Nazism. For whatever reason the Russians co-operated the end result was to give power to the Nazis and was a contributing factor in the start of WW II.

Fact: Fundamentalist Islam, regardless of flavor, and its adherents consider the West and especially the U.S. as corrupt, debauched in its depravities and an enemy of Islam, i.e.:"The Great Satan." Make no mistake about it, these people have declared themselves our enemy. Believe them!!! To do otherwise would be insane. When someone threatens to punch me in the nose, I take them at their word and take suitable precautions because getting punched in the nose is very unpleasant and somewhat discouraging. Thats a very simplistic analogy but no less valid because of that.

Fact: The history of the Middle East and its surrounding nations has always been one of unrest and trouble. It was trouble for the Assyrians, Babylonians, Egyptians, followed by the Greeks, Persians and Romans. Even Genghis Khan, the greatest conqueror the world has ever seen, far surpassing Attila, Alexander or Napoleon and who forged an empire by the assimilation of peoples that lasted for over two hundred years, considered the area not worth assimilating and took steps to depopulate it, if and when he met any opposition to his goals.
Later, the area was problematic for the Turks, the French and the British. These are very troublesome and warlike peoples and they are not about to change. They are becoming increasingly dangerous since they now have access to technology. How much longer will it be before we see "dirty bombs" in London, New York, Paris or Berlin??? We've had 911 and the bombings of the trains in Spain!!! Do we have to sit idly by waiting for a disaster of horrendus proportions??? What's the answer to be??? How many more innocents must die at the hands of these animals??? Maybe the Israelis have it right; pre-emptive strikes but will we have the courage to do so in the face of almost certain condemnation from the bleeding hearts of this world???? Can we afford not to??? :(

by tony hopkinson

Some of your point are quite valid. Some of them seem to be based on an extremely selective view of history.
Almost as though they were left out because they didn't help you make your point.
All those people you mentioned how did the get troubled by the area, wouldn't be anything to do with invading it would it. ?

by sleepin'dawg

The Romans sort of inherited the problem from the Greeks but they were driven by the need of stable resources for corn and wheat. When the locals took to fighting amongst themselves the Romans sent their armies in primarily to stabilize the situation. They extended Roman citizenship to their allies and supported them fully against the other tribes that were upsetting the 'Pax Romana'; all this being much like the present day Iraqi invasion to stabilize the area and insure a stable supply of fuel and lubricants. Of course I was selective; how could I be otherwise? The history of the middle east fills shelves if not whole libraries and you expect me to post all that? Here's something for you to consider: Jews and Arabs are both Semitic peoples and their internecine rivalry predates recorded history. On the timeline of existence Islam is a relative upstart having 'only' been around since 600 A.D. or so, when old Mohammed received his "divine visions" or depending on your point of view, halucinations. I think my basic point is valid; these people have been warlike for thousands of years and with the advent of technology they have every intention of spreading their virulence to the west. Maybe I am being needlessly alarmist but supposing I'm not??? What harm is there in taking precautions??? Or would you prefer to act like the Jews who not comprehending the threat of Nazism, sat idly by waiting for the axe to fall??? Six million of them died before the world woke up to that threat and do not forget the other 4 - 6 million that also went into the ovens or were shot; Gypsies, Russians, Poles, Slavs, Communists, Political Dissidents. We tend to concentrate on the Jews, because they were the largest group and forget the others. There have been other attempts at exterminating various races but we take most notice of the Nazis because they were the first to systemize it and make it part of their political policy.

I know you will say that it can never happen again but can you be sure??? Do not kid yourself! It can happen again! Until recently, the spread of terrorism was officially sanctioned and financed by the governments of Lybia, Syria, Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan. It isn't much of a step to up the ante and sanction Jihad or even genocide. Maybe it will never happen but what harm is there in being prepared???

Dawg

by oz_media

Just to be clear on my previous comments:

This is an ad hominem argument in my world.

"Just because you are. . . .
.
.....closed minded, uninformed, and lack the capacity to understand complicated issues, it doesn't mean the rest of us are. If you were "misled", but others were not, who's the dumb-sh*t? "

From our friend Maxwell.

Now you will notice that this was HIS reply to a 16 paragraph explanation of my views, directed at another person who had openly requested my opinions on specific matters.

Maxwell's response, completely unprovoked, was directed at attcking ME as the person and not the argument itself, was not directed at the argument itself and was purely a flame instead of a counter argument.

Judging by the fact that I hae neither called Max names or implied his posts lack intelligence, this would constitute as an unwarranted response for the sole purpose of argument without substance dorected at me and not at the comments I had made in anyway.

That would constitute as "attacking the person" or "argumentum ad hominem".

by protiusx

Just a little tid bit to mentally chew on: Look up the origins of GOG and MAGOG that are referenced in the book of Revelations. Interesting stuff compared to today's current events.

by apotheon

I never said you called him names. Perhaps you missed my point.

Note that, though you may not have implied maxwell's posts lack intelligence, he's not the only person you've "argued" against.

by apotheon

You're right. Hitler isn't a good comparison. Stalin would be the more accurate point of comparison, especially considering that Saddam Hussein consciously emulated the man.

by apotheon

Violence is justified only in defense against coercive influence, and then only when the coercion is based on violence or threat of violence. A just war is that state of conflict that arises when arms are taken up in denial of oppression. Those taking arms against oppression need not be the oppressed for it to be justified, no matter what Jessie says, else there'd never be any justification for law enforcement.

by tony hopkinson

the threat does not have to be physical, then I agree. Stopping someone practicing their religion for instance. In fact any coercion to conform with others could be viewed by someone as a form of violence.

by apotheon

Violence is, by definition, physical in nature. Thus, [b]physical[/b] violence is only justified as a defensive measure against [b]physical[/b] violence or threat thereof. The threat, however, need not be physically violent, so long as the threatened action is.

If someone threatens to be a meanie, that's hardly justification for attacking him with a sledgehammer. On the other hand, if someone verbally threatens you with a promise of physical violence, and there's a likelihood of the person having the ability to carry through on that threat, you certainly have the right to defend yourself as needed. The key is that force may not be initiated, and reciprocal force may only be applied to the extent that it is necessary to prevent the target of that defensive use of force from applying unjust force.

by av .

I remember when he gave this speech. It was the first time that I realized that Bush was obsessed with Iraq.

I listened to the arguments, read the news from all different angles but what convinced me the most that it was a "Wag the Dog" moment was Colin Powell. In a session with the UN, he showed pictures of all of the supposed biological weapons labs, satellite photos of Iraq, etc. and tried to convince them all that Iraq had WMDs. He wasn't very convincing to me. I don't think he even believed it himself.

Well, he didn't convince the UN either, which is why we are where we are today. The truth is Iraq was not an immediate threat to us and there is no reason why we couldn't have pursued all other avenues first and had a united effort in the end, not just a coalition of the willing or coerced. Especially when we are talking about war. We don't live in this world alone.

There are many brutal regimes in this world. North Korea would probably blow us off the map if they had a reliable long-range missile. Why aren't we there preventing that? Look what they do to their people. It makes Saddam look like Mr. Rogers. There is the threat, you don't need satellite photos, they admit it. They already have nuclear weapons. They're not as interesting though, as they don't have any oil.

His speech doesn't change my mind. I was open-minded back then, but now that I see his policies in action I can only hope that other policy makers will keep him in check.

by oz_media

I have a firm opinion based on what I have seen and read. You have yours basedon the exact same principles as does Max.

The news we rely on leaves a lot unconfirmed and throws a lot of possible scenarios into the mix, we get different opinions and that's how we form our own.

I know my opinion is not popular with half of the USA, half of you are for it and half against it.

If we all thought and felt the same about life, people would be even more boring than they already are.

This doesn't make me stupid, or illogical or anything else as a result of forming a different opinoin. I have also based my opinion on facts from the White House and world news, just as you and Max have, in my case I saw different facts and reached a different concluison. Live with it.

Now dogs or cats, those are an interesting species! Too many humans only see off or on, right or wrong, much like the computers we designed I suppose.

by apotheon

There would never have been UN approval for military action in Iraq. All it takes is one member of the Security Council to veto, and nothing happens with UN approval. Russia and France were eyebrow-deep in Iraqi oil, and were supplying Iraq with military hardware under the table (in direct violation of UN mandate), as well as sending military "guest speakers" and the like to train Iraqi military leaders (this last was particularly true of Russia).

France flat-out stated that they would never, under any circumstances, agree to military action against Iraq, [b]even if Iraq pulled out some chemical or nuclear weapons and used them[/b] as they did previously (with sarin gas) against the Iraqi Kurds. They stated at NATO meetings that even if Iraq launched an attack against Turkey (another NATO member), they'd not be involved in defensive measures to aid Turkey (which, frankly, sounds like grounds to kick 'em out of NATO, if you ask me).

In other words, the UN would never grant its seal of approvale to any military action in Iraq, [b]even if it was the right thing to do[/b].

by oz_media

The flipside of that is NObody was concerned if others would join in, yes it would be nice and yes several said they would, if inspections fail.

The issue is, and this was where KERRY was said to have flipflopped when he actually didn't.

People supoprted the war as a last resort should inspcetions once gain fail. Not to invade Iraq, but to FORCE inspections to be completed as said.

Bush REMOVED the inspectors and went to war, I beleive even he said it would be a last resort should inspections fail,which Kerry then supported.

Nobody supported SKIPPING inspections, which were going as planned this time, and invading the entire country. That wasn't discussed , it wasn't supported and now it has been proven to be wrong.

There was no thoughts of liberation by Bush or the Republican Administration, this is just a bonus to havign a foothold for America in the Middle East and after Afghanistan, net move to was get Saddamout of there. The Afghan oil pipeline will be an easy close now, the US economy will gain a boost form the shorter shipment of oil, the greater demand from THAT part of the world as opposed to shipping around Western Europe, where this is litlle demand. It is economically beneficial fo rthe US, no other option was.

But this is EASILY masked, VERY easily when the result of this means Iraqi's are under a new government and will see liberation. Now even the 'bleeding heart lefty's' will be happy to see a humanitarian effort, as well as the 'commercial righties' who will see an economy boost, Iraq wins, the democrats win, the republicans win.

But none of this would have been a reality if Bush wasn't going to win. How quickly everyone dismisses the Oil aquisition theory, yet it has been a focus for YEARS now, and each time it seems Saddam puts a wrench in the works. Even the Taliban likaed the idea as it would help them boost their own organization. They had to be pused away from Afghanistan and into their more secluded area of Kandahar first, then Saddam, then Iraq's government with candidates hand selected by the USA, not the Iraqi people, which some Iraqi's have begun to protest over.

So while even I doubted the whole oil aquisition idea, it is once again appearing as the main reason for the US invasion. Sorry but your country has NEVER done anything unless it see some benefit to the US. Certainly you protect and support many nations, that is also in your best interests though.

Iraq qasn't about liberation, it wasn't about WMD, that was just the catalyst to support the concept.

I also don't think it was to gain Saddam's oil though. Bush wants to see the Afghan pipeline installed for US benefits, get some military bases in the area before China and Russia does. Saddam wouldn't let Bush play ball in the middle east, the Taliban wanted to reap the rewards of the pipeline. With them gone, it is democratic country's sharing with the USA.

THat's why the whole WMD BS just pissed me right off, this guy takes a stand on WMD and every once of his body language, speech pattern and facial mannerisms was a clear indication of ulterior motive. NOt a president thinking of people's best interests. Which therefore does not make him a president but a business manager.

by jessie

Basically my view on personal freedom is this, If someone were to ask me for my help in gaining their freedom, I will GLADLY give it. However, I cannot IMPOSE my HELP on others if they do not want it or ask for it.

For instance, if my best friend's husband were beating her, I could not remove her from the situation, it is her choice to be there. All I can do is offer my help, my home, financial assistance, what have you... and the choice is hers to make.

If the people of Iraq had banded together and risen against Saddam and asked for our help, be it weapons or troops, money or food, I'd have gladly put on a uniform myself and gone to their assistance. I have no doubt that Saddam is a bad man and we should've taken his ass out in '91, but the fact of the matter is, they didn't ask for our help, at least, not that I've heard. Now if they did and the government simply chose not to tell us about it, then shame on them and we should've gone there much sooner.

And if my personal freedoms are attacked... at home or abroad, I'll be strapping on the nearest assault rifle and kicking some serious ass!!!

by oz_media

A political discusion on TR is completely futile, this is no purpose, no gain and no conclusion to reach. People just argue, then call each other names and then, if you are lucky, agree to disagree.

Garion isn't a bad dude, been around here for a bit and has a different view of what's wrong or right.

If you agree, you are a hero and sane. If you disagree, you are delusional, misinformed, anti-Bush etc.

There IS no discussion to be had, this same issue about the Iraqi incaison has been tossed around here for years now and it is ALWAYS the same two sides, the same comments and flames, from the EXACT same people.

If you don't see it THEIR way you are stupid. If you provide information that lead to your conclusion, the information is wrong, lefty, bleeding heart etc. I have been tagged with EVERY political affiliation, every name you can muster and not one of them pertains to my actual political stand even remotely.

Give it up, mate. It will go nowhere.

It's easier to just smile and give it a pass.

by oz_media

Well done, "stand up and be counted for what you are about to receive!"

I'll have to buy you a drink one day!

by maxwell edison

.
You're inferring that the woman WANTS to be beaten instead of being afraid to "rise up" and ask for help for any number of reasons.

Besides, the people of Iraq DID ask for the help, at least some of them did.

What would you expect? A national election with the ballot question, "Should the people of Iraq ask the United States to help them overthrow Saddam Hussein"?

You know, if a man had made that wife-beating analogy, he'd be blasted as being cold and ignorant. I'm really surprised to see that from a woman.

by maxwell edison

.
We actually agree. However, while you seemingly point the finger at others, you fail to see the three fingers pointing back at yourself.

by maxwell edison

.
You may not think the police have a right to kick-in the door to protect someone from a physically abusive person, presumably because he or she "accepts" the abuse willingly, but how about murder? What if this "abuser" also murders those who don't capitulate to his or her will. After all, they stay there of their own free will. They could collectively rise up and subdue him. But they don't, so the abuse and murders continue.

Did you really say what I think you said?

by thechas

Max,

First, yes I know I said I need to stay away from the political threads, but I can't help myself. Think of it as therapy.

Anyhow, yes, the situation in Iraq does look promising, and seems to be going better than we nay sayers ever thought.

Still, I don't remember GWB talking about bringing Democracy to the Iraqi people until it started to become clear that the WMDs were not there.

As I have stated, I don't like situational ethics, or "ends justify the means" thinking. Just because it looks like we are bringing a better future to the people of Iraq does not justify the initial premise of the invasion.

If, the Bush administration were to admit that the WMD and War on Terror justifications were inflated and flawed to begin with, that would go a long way to establishing some credibility with me.

Chas

by maxwell edison

.
On the WMD issue, I've said all along that the bigger question is one that not many people are asking. Where are they? I don't think anyone would disagree that they were, at one time, there. Everyone knew it. And since Saddam failed to prove their destruction, what happened to them? And actually, the REAL reason for the WMD inclusion as a reason for the action against Iraq, was that it was up to Saddam to prove that he did indeed destroy them, not for anyone else to prove he didn't. And Saddam failed to comply.

Moreover, I still have a suspicion that there's a lot the public is not privy to in this regard. I've read from too many credible people, and I've mentioned Lt. General Michael DeLong as only one of them, that the WMDs were there, and that they were moved out in the days before and during the initial invasion. Something's not right about this, and we don't know the whole story. And I'm not suggesting that we should know, either.

Moreover, since I believe there's a lot we don't know, but President Bush obviously does, I actually see it as admirable that he literally put his political life on the line to do what he considered the right thing, regardless of the domestic and world-wide political pressure put on him to do otherwise. And I'll add this as well. I trust President Bush a whole lot more than I trust the French, the Russians, and the United Nations leadership.

However, even though the suspected presence of WMDs was emphasized, it was not the only reason given. The other reasons include ones as articulated by President Bush himself.

Excerpts from President Bush's speech to the United Nations in September 2002:

Twelve years ago, Iraq invaded Kuwait without provocation. And the regime's forces were poised to continue their march to seize other countries and their resources. Had Saddam Hussein been appeased instead of stopped, he would have endangered the peace and stability of the world. Yet this aggression was stopped -- by the might of coalition forces and the will of the United Nations.

To suspend hostilities, to spare himself, Iraq's dictator accepted a series of commitments. The terms were clear, to him and to all. And he agreed to prove he is complying with every one of those obligations.

He has proven instead only his contempt for the United Nations, and for all his pledges. By breaking every pledge -- by his deceptions, and by his cruelties -- Saddam Hussein has made the case against himself.

In 1991, Security Council Resolution 688 demanded that the Iraqi regime cease at once the repression of its own people, including the systematic repression of minorities -- which the Council said, threatened international peace and security in the region. This demand goes ignored.

Last year, the U.N. Commission on Human Rights found that Iraq continues to commit extremely grave violations of human rights, and that the regime's repression is all pervasive. Tens of thousands of political opponents and ordinary citizens have been subjected to arbitrary arrest and imprisonment, summary execution, and torture by beating and burning, electric shock, starvation, mutilation, and rape. Wives are tortured in front of their husbands, children in the presence of their parents -- and all of these horrors concealed from the world by the apparatus of a totalitarian state.

In 1991, the U.N. Security Council, through Resolutions 686 and 687, demanded that Iraq return all prisoners from Kuwait and other lands. Iraq's regime agreed. It broke its promise. Last year the Secretary General's high-level coordinator for this issue reported that Kuwait, Saudi, Indian, Syrian, Lebanese, Iranian, Egyptian, Bahraini, and Omani nationals remain unaccounted for -- more than 600 people. One American pilot is among them.

In 1991, the U.N. Security Council, through Resolution 687, demanded that Iraq renounce all involvement with terrorism, and permit no terrorist organizations to operate in Iraq. Iraq's regime agreed. It broke this promise. In violation of Security Council Resolution 1373, Iraq continues to shelter and support terrorist organizations that direct violence against Iran, Israel, and Western governments. Iraqi dissidents abroad are targeted for murder. In 1993, Iraq attempted to assassinate the Emir of Kuwait and a former American President. Iraq's government openly praised the attacks of September the 11th. And al Qaeda terrorists escaped from Afghanistan and are known to be in Iraq.

In 1991, the Iraqi regime agreed to destroy and stop developing all weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles, and to prove to the world it has done so by complying with rigorous inspections. Iraq has broken every aspect of this fundamental pledge.

In 1990, after Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, the world imposed economic sanctions on Iraq. Those sanctions were maintained after the war to compel the regime's compliance with Security Council resolutions. In time, Iraq was allowed to use oil revenues to buy food. Saddam Hussein has subverted this program, working around the sanctions to buy missile technology and military materials. He blames the suffering of Iraq's people on the United Nations, even as he uses his oil wealth to build lavish palaces for himself, and to buy arms for his country. By refusing to comply with his own agreements, he bears full guilt for the hunger and misery of innocent Iraqi citizens.

In 1991, Iraq promised U.N. inspectors immediate and unrestricted access to verify Iraq's commitment to rid itself of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles. Iraq broke this promise, spending seven years deceiving, evading, and harassing U.N. inspectors before ceasing cooperation entirely. Just months after the 1991 cease-fire, the Security Council twice renewed its demand that the Iraqi regime cooperate fully with inspectors, condemning Iraq's serious violations of its obligations. The Security Council again renewed that demand in 1994, and twice more in 1996, deploring Iraq's clear violations of its obligations. The Security Council renewed its demand three more times in 1997, citing flagrant violations; and three more times in 1998, calling Iraq's behavior totally unacceptable. And in 1999, the demand was renewed yet again.

The United States helped found the United Nations. We want the United Nations to be effective, and respectful, and successful. We want the resolutions of the world's most important multilateral body to be enforced. And right now those resolutions are being unilaterally subverted by the Iraqi regime. Our partnership of nations can meet the test before us, by making clear what we now expect of the Iraqi regime.

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately and unconditionally forswear, disclose, and remove or destroy all weapons of mass destruction, long-range missiles, and all related material.

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately end all support for terrorism and act to suppress it, as all states are required to do by U.N. Security Council resolutions.

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will cease persecution of its civilian population, including Shi'a, Sunnis, Kurds, Turkomans, and others, again as required by Security Council resolutions.

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will release or account for all Gulf War personnel whose fate is still unknown. It will return the remains of any who are deceased, return stolen property, accept liability for losses resulting from the invasion of Kuwait, and fully cooperate with international efforts to resolve these issues, as required by Security Council resolutions.

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately end all illicit trade outside the oil-for-food program. It will accept U.N. administration of funds from that program, to ensure that the money is used fairly and promptly for the benefit of the Iraqi people.

If all these steps are taken, it will signal a new openness and accountability in Iraq. And it could open the prospect of the United Nations helping to build a government that represents all Iraqis -- a government based on respect for human rights, economic liberty, and internationally supervised elections.

The United States has no quarrel with the Iraqi people; they've suffered too long in silent captivity. Liberty for the Iraqi people is a great moral cause, and a great strategic goal. The people of Iraq deserve it; the security of all nations requires it. Free societies do not intimidate through cruelty and conquest, and open societies do not threaten the world with mass murder. The United States supports political and economic liberty in a unified Iraq.

Events can turn in one of two ways: If we fail to act in the face of danger, the people of Iraq will continue to live in brutal submission. The regime will have new power to bully and dominate and conquer its neighbors, condemning the Middle East to more years of bloodshed and fear. The regime will remain unstable -- the region will remain unstable, with little hope of freedom, and isolated from the progress of our times.........."

Liberty for the Iraqi people is a great moral cause, and a great strategic goal

Liberty for the Iraqi people is a great moral cause, and a great strategic goal

Liberty for the Iraqi people is a great moral cause, and a great strategic goal

Liberty for the Iraqi people is a great moral cause, and a great strategic goal

- Remarks by the President in Address to the United Nations General Assembly in September 2002

The speech in its entirety:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/09/20020912-1.html

Chas, not only did President Bush mention things other than "only WMDs", but he spoke MORE of OTHER things than he did of the suspected WMDs.

If I could give this speech a name based on the primary emphasis made, I would have to call it:

"Iraqi Liberty: A Great Moral Cause, A Great Strategic Goal"

So yes indeed, President Bush DID talk about bringing Democracy to the Iraqi people - well before, as you suggested, "it started to become clear that the WMDs were not there". (But we STILL don't know for sure that they weren't, do we?)

There's only one reason people will not make this concession. They either can't read, or they "won't" read.

by jdclyde

I have heard this before, but I think that most of the people that say it aren't as honest about this or as open as you are to accept it.

The majority is just looking for a quick "gotcha" so they can further justify their rabbid hatetred for Bush.

I am personally confused how intellegent rational people have developed this intense hate for Bush, LONG before we invaded Iraq. I just see it as the Democratic party trying to stir up emotions to get people going, and hate is a strong emotion that is easier to get going than most others.

While I thought Bill Clinton was a terrible president, I am SURE he would be a great guy to go out and party with. (just keep him away from my country and my daughter).

John Kerry just was too arrogant because he knew that over half of the Democrats don't pay attention to what happens in politics so he could say whatever he thought people wanted to hear, even if it went against something he had said in a TV interview a month earlier. And you can't win an election based on hate and being "not Bush".

So while you would probably take something from them admitting to this, most would not. To many are just hearing what they want to hear, when they want to hear it.

by tony hopkinson

Rwanda and the Balkans, both exanples of 'ethnic' cleansing. Not as in the open as Adolf's mass extermination programs but just as horrible.
I don't have any argument about taking out Hussein, good riddance to bad rubbish. I simply fail to see the need 'beef up / jazz up' the case for doing it. Once the initial justifications fell over, media based or not, the politicians certainly didn't go out of their way to correct them, any 'reason' after that looks like cya.
I would have gone covert to achieve the aim, bad for the image if you get caught, but much more efficient.

by sleepin'dawg

Rwanda is actually a bad example of genocide or ethnic cleansing as the Hutus and Tutsis have been pursuing internecine extinction as long as anyone can remember. The Balkans on the otherhand come closer to the Nazi ideal through the policies of people, such as Slobodan Milosovic and others of his ilk in Bosnia, Croatia, Macedonia and the other Balkan states. The Russians and others, used to have 'official' pogroms and when they got low on Jews would take to the killing of people in general. Kruschev actually took pride in exceeding Hitler's body count while in control of the Ukraine. The U.S.S.R. cannot to this day, accurately say how many disappeared into the gulags but Putin, while slowing things down a tad, does keep things warmed up in Chechnia (thats spelled wrong I think). The Turks did a "better" job in almost succeeding with the extermination of the Armenians, wiping out almost half the world's population of them whereas the Germans only succeeded in killing 15-20% of the world's Jews. So much for ethnic cleansing and/or genocide.

Islam on the otherhand, as stated in the Qu'ran, orders its adherents to convert all 'unbelievers' to the teachings of Mohammed or else 'deliver them up to the sword.' This means they are out not just against Christians but all other religions and sects, as witnessed by the destruction of the Buddhas, which had been declared World Heritage treasures by the U.N. This is not to condemn all of Islam, only its most fundamentalist adherents and it is in the Middle East where they are most prevalent and active, financed by the oil wealth of the region. Terror has always been around as an instrument of conquest and oppression but it was normally internalized and targetted against specific goals such as the control of specific groups of people but fundamentalist Islam has changed the rules whereby they have taken to the indiscriminate export of terrorism with the avowed aim of destroying the depraved debaucheries and licentiousness of the West, more specifically the U.S.,"The Great Satan". They are instilling this in there children and if you doubt this take a trip to northern Pakistan along the Afghanistan border and see schools which teach nothing but the most fundamental aspects of Islam and are indoctrinating the children into believing it is their duty to destroy infidel unbelievers or you could shorten the trip and drop in on the Gaza and watch the Intifada and those who teach them, in action.

How can we combat this??? These people believe they will be taken into Paradise if they die while in pursuit of their goals. My own personal belief is that we should do what we can to accelerate the dying aspect for them because unless we become prepared to do just that, they are going to keep coming at us, until either we or they are destroyed. When is the next 911 type of event going to take place??? Today??? Tomorrow??? Next week??? Next month??? Next year??? Who knows??? I only know its coming and I don't have a hell of a lot of confidence in our leaders' abilities in stopping it. How many more innocents must we watch being killed by these animals before we take action to stop them once and for all time??? But then, what action can we take or will we be prepared to take??? Must we become as evil as them??? An interesting conundrum!!! Hmmm??? :(

Dawg

by tony hopkinson

The terrorists use it to justify theirs. The same justification has been used by christians for centuries in penalizing followers of other religions including Islam.
As for accelerating the dying, who are they killing, Bin Laden ?. His top boys. ? Other terrorist leaders?
No. Bomb fodder, small fry and innocents are along with our troops and civilians are the ones doing the dying.
Education is the only way out, until we are educated enough to know that our beliefs are being used to manipulate us for our leader's benefit, we suffer and they prosper.

Do you expect Bin Laden to turn up near a bunch of your/our country men wearing a C4 waistcoat?
TB & GWB going over the top with an armalite and a tin hat is more likely.

So for your own benefit stop using such a broad brush to mark your enemies, you just end up with more.
Remember Bin Laden and his buddies benefit from simplifying the argument to Islam vs the world, we do not.

by jdclyde

If I do the will of "god" and cut off someone's head or set off a car bomb I will get an orgy in heaven as my reward. When you look at how hard life is for the average person in the middle east, that seems to be the only thing they have to live for?

When the non-believers are not even recognized as human beings with a right to life, you are dealing with a very scary and sick group of people.

by tony hopkinson

Now if we can just stop getting people pigeon holed as a menber of a group that has been violent to us so we can reciprocate against someone who has not done anything to us personally, we'll have cracked it.

by jessie

I do NOT think anyone has the right to abuse another person!!! And I KNOW why women stay in abusive situations. The analogy I gave earlier was a TRUE analogy. My best friend WAS getting the crap beaten out of her by her husband, and no matter how many times, I offered her my home, my financial assistance, to be a chauffer to the police station so she could make a report, and told her she did NOT deserve that kind of treatment, I could NOT get her to leave... and I couldn't very well kidnap her against her will.

After I called the police on him, her husband decided I was a "bad influence" on his wife, and would not allow her to return my calls. He kept her in the house when I'd try to come by and talk to her. And when I'd come by and he wasn't there, she wouldn't come to the door.

It broke my heart to leave her in that situation. But I did do everything I could for her. I can only offer my hand, she had the choice to take it or not. She chose not.

As for the situation in Iraq, if the people had themselves risen up against Saddam, which they did not, I'd have been all for lending them our aid. However, most of them seemed to be of the same mindset, that as long as it wasn't their husband/wife/mother/father/son/daughter disappearing, then the best course of action was to keep quiet, or leave the country. If the people of a nation don't believe their freedom is worth fighting for, then why should I be convinced that they will be happy to have me get them their freedom, which they won't fight to keep? What's the point?

by sleepin'dawg

To pretend otherwise is foolishness to an extreme. Who said anything about Bin Laden? He's just another example of Islamic fundamentalism and he uses it to whip up the necessary number of easily led weakminded idiots to carry out his aims, as do Hezbollah and the Jihadists. Its nice to be a caring, socially concious, bleeding heart but that won't stop the next sucide bombers from extracting their supposed vengeance. Do try to not be at ground zero when the next one goes off. Oh, I'm sorry, you don't know where the next one is going off. Well, good luck to you then, you just might need it.

by jdclyde

Actually, you have done very well in identifying the situation. I think I just cut off all candy coatings and went for the root of the problem. I get like that.

There are a lot of things that have happened over the years that people have used as excuses for both times the trade center was attacked, the cole, the embassies, the beheading of Daniel Peral and on and on. As if we "brought this on ourselves".

The way we brought this on ourselves is by not being muslims and still being alive.

Keep saying it as it is. There aren't enough that are doing as well of a job as you. Maybe someday I will work at being more sensitive, maybe. (doubt it)

by garion11

They know who the real aholes are...but in their stupidity and hatred, jealousy or whatever you wanna call it they have for America...they are completely willing to take the side of these fundamentalist muslims. It is sad really. The real enemy is knocking on their own doors...yet all these people think that America is the problem.

by rasmusson.rasmusson52

Freedom, what is it other then the conscious individual self determining what freedom is to that person with current times? Everyone owns an idea of what freedon is, I had experienced many aspects that lacked freedom, and whether inside a brick and steel wall or free in the streets, there is still rule and regulations every where. To me Earth is bound by law and rule that prohibit us acting as animals or cavemen. Yet, then again if it came down to survival of society and the planet and the human race, we must preserve society at any cost... this Earth is on a one way almost irreversable track of destruction, I know it asw others do yet do not want to cause pandimonium. So what do we do, I certainly hope everyone is clean and does not have any viral flues that can not be solved because that would cripple many humans from the breath of life for how unclean everyone had lived for so long. Look at the cleaning of civit cats, the slaughtering and the avian bird flu. It is going to happen, almost like a sceen from Stephen King the STAND. Plus, remember that movie AL Gore produced with devastating realities of hurricanes over the USA and other Countries, think about it....

This discussion is closed to new replies.