Community archive

Ask something
Discussion Locked

Why did we go to war?

0 helpful
486 replies

by aldanatech 2 views

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

So why did we go to war? Was it because Iraq had weapons of mass destruction? Was it to free Iraq from Saddam Hussein? Was it because Iraq had links to terrorism? Or was it because the Bush administration simply wanted some means to go to war, regardless of its cost both economic and human?

So far no WMDs have been found, and even Bush is this close of admitting that there weren?t any. Yes, we did find Saddam Hussein, but it was probably the most expensive manhunt in history. Also, do you think that if we would of done this differently, we would of got Osama Bin Laden instead? As for the possible link of Iraq with terrorism, the 9/11 commission says there weren?t any, but Bush says that there was simply because there was. He provides no feasible evidence or even a clear explanation for his claims. Even if there was, does that mean that we should invade every single country in the world with suspected links to terrorism?

What about 9/11 itself, do you think it could have been prevented? Do you think we would be safer if we spent more on intelligence than in the military? By the way, what do you think is the Muslim world?s impression of the US so far? What do you think is the rest of the world?s impression of the US so far?

486 replies

by jimhm

Why - Because the USA is the badest kid on the block and we could ...

You get all other stories - from GWB wanted to make more money from his Oil stock - to WMD and Saddam was a Murder - But none of that is true - they are all lies ...

We did it because we wanted to - just because we could - just cause we is the badest MFer on the block and wanted to show the world - we aint taken nothing from none of them no Mo...

Yea - We be Big - Bad - and Need laid ...

by oz_media

Dude I don't care how BAD you need to get laid, the rest of your post is pure crap and you know it, why even bother?

by jimhm

Do you know humor when you read it or are you just the biggest Arse Hole I've seen my entire life.... God Oz you need mental help - Nan-dude just end-it and give us all a F'en break from your stupid lines...

by oz_media

The weekend Priovinc enews had an article printed by some newspaper in California, about the fact that the CIA was acting upon the thoughts of the administration and not the other way around, as it should be.

I will type it all out and post it later.

It CLEARLY states that there was absolutely NO concern of WMD and that it had been confirmed, also shows how there was absolutely NO ties between Saddam and AlQaeda (which was recently confirmed through the courts system I believe).

I am not too sure but I will post it later, it is actually quite interesting as this has been my personal stand since before the war began and now it is coming to light that you were all purposely mislead due to Republican interests.

I will NOT debate this topic with anyone or anything said in my post, there is no cause for feedback at this point as nothing has been said, just suggested, and I will provide the information in the newspaper later.

But it's uinteresting this post came up because I was wondering whether to post the article or not, I decided not to as it would simply be reduced as flaming th eUS or baiting people. Now I suppose it is simply offering what OUR news reported your news said.

by klaken

With a totally confused President who leads by abdication, coupled with a hobbled intelligence community, and reinforced by a defacto defence contractor Vice President, the fog of war started in the Florida vote scandal. So the system just went there.
America got what it let's government do. We went to war in Iraq and squandered our military initiative agains terrorism, however we solved the unemployment problem by creating the TSA to make sure Americans leave their fingernail clippers at home. So most Americans are happy that someone seems to be doing something. As long as we think like a school of fish, the sharks will continue to herd us. The external sharks (terrorists) are herding the internal sharks (Defense)against the will of the American people.

by dwdino

hehehehehehehehehehe
hahahahahahahahahaha
hohohohohohohohohoho
[gasp]
hehehehehehehehehehe
hahahahahahahahahaha
hohohohohohohohohoho

by paul.tiffany

If the U.S. had a problem with terrorism before and a fair amount of apathy, that has all changed after the Iraq War. Where there was one terrorist, now there are fifty. Critical mass has finally been reached. As citizens of the U.S., we'll be paying for this war for a long, long time.

Of course, the oil companies and arms merchants are getting richer and richer, so not everybody lost. And, you thought the Enron saga was nearing completion...

by john_wills

The Free Palestine marches were getting serious: it looked as though they would eventually cause the U.S. to stop arming and subsidizing the Israelis. Now the demonstrating classes have the conquest of Iraq to complain about, and the Free Palestine angle is just a minor side-issue. It is to the Zionists' advantage that the U.S. be embroiled in wars so that the U.S. will not feel guilty about supporting the Israelis.

by Member 19345100

I love reading about how the Jews control the banks, the newspapers, radio and TV stations, the trilaterial commission (whatever the hell that is), hollywood, that department of the interior, etc., etc., etc. I had no idea I was so powerful.

Israel is the only democracy in the middle east. That in itself is a terrific reason to support her. Furthermore, if you look at a map of the middle east, you will have much difficulty finding Israel - it's tiny. There are 4 Million Israelis, some of whom are Arab. There are about 200 Million people living in Arab and Muslim countries (Iran is Muslim but not Arab). Israel is the only place in the middle east where there is no oil underground - and the Jews got there with divine guidance.

And finally, a lot of Jews marched in protest of the Iraqi war. I was there - I saw them. The Iraqi war and the Palestinians have nothing to do with one another. The only reason why anybody links them is to confuse the issue. You are correct when you write that Palestine is a minor side-issue - so why bother to bring up?

by jamesrl

And its an irritating argument.

I definately haved mixed feelings about Isreal and its treatment of the palestinian people.

But that doesn't mean I am anti-semetic - I know Jews in Canada who have the same feelings - are they anti-semetic?

And while we are at it, its a big mistake to equate Muslims and Arabs - the majority of Muslims live in south east asia - Indonesia etc. Arab Muslims are about a third of the total Muslim population.

James

by john_wills

When Jeff says that Jews had divine guidance in taking Eretz Israel he presumably means the Israelites, who later split into Jews and Samaritans. The Jews later still split into Christians and Rabbinical Jews. It is a mistake to think of the Israelis as descended from the Biblical Israelites. Obviously a Rabbinical Jew will think that he belongs to the truest branch of Israel, but he should not expect either Christians or Samaritans (of whom there are about 500) to share his opinion. And from the point of view of a Rabbinical Jew, Christians are certainly Israelites within the meaning of Joshua and Muslims are pretty close.

by john_wills

September 11 could have been avoided by the U.S. refusing to sell weapons to undemocratic states, in particular the Israeli state and the Arab despotisms. President Carter issued an executive order preventing the export of weapons to American despotisms and 10 years later every American country except Haiti and Cuba was a democracy. If the same policy had covered the world the Arab states would include some democracies by now, and Osama bin Laden would have been leader of a political party. Also, the Israelis would have at least started letting the exiles home, ending a source of bitterness.

by garion11

I agree with selling arms to undemocratic countries but unfortunately Reagan, senior Bush, and Clinton didn't follow that and we have a frigging mess.

"September 11 could have been avoided by the U.S. refusing to sell weapons to undemocratic states, in particular the Israeli state and the Arab despotisms"

Israel is not a non democracy. It is a fully democractic state...the only one in that cess pool they call the middle east.

by john_wills

The Israeli state was founded or authorized by the UN on the condition that "non-Jews" in its territory would retain full civil and political rights. The people expelled in 1948 are therefore Israeli citizens, but they are not allowed to vote in Israeli elections. They are such a large proportion of the citizenry that excluding them from the vote makes the state a non-democracy.

Besides that, depending on what you mean by "Middle East", there are democracies there: think of Turkey, Lebanon, Yemen, Iran (okay, Iran's irresponsible judiciary has fairly recently made that a non-democracy too).

by garion11

"So why did we go to war?"

To prevent another 9/11 because....

Was it because Iraq had weapons of mass destruction?

...based on the intelligence that GWB and Tony Blair received. GWB came to the conclusion that to protect America, Saddam had to go. Waiting for the UN isn't a "smart" decision and isn't in America's interests.

Was it to free Iraq from Saddam Hussein?

No that was the secondary cause.

Was it because Iraq had links to terrorism?

Iraq had links to terrorism, it didn't have links to 9/11. Big difference. "We will not make a distinction between terrorists and countries which harbor them or support them."

Or was it because the Bush administration simply wanted some means to go to war, regardless of its cost both economic and human?

Based on those reasons, Bush administration could have picked any nation, and/or multiple nations. GWB could have used nuclear weapons if you feel it was "regardless of economic and human". We could have left Iraq in a state of disarray and moved to the next country in the "axis of evil". We are there rebuilding, again its not "regardless of economic and human."

"So far no WMDs have been found, and even Bush is this close of admitting that there weren?t any. Yes, we did find Saddam Hussein, but it was probably the most expensive manhunt in history. Also, do you think that if we would of done this differently, we would of got Osama Bin Laden instead?"

Hmmm..Bin Laden is quite possibly dead. How do you really know he isn't?? Hindsight is 20/20 as they say, its possible or it isn't possible that we would have gotten him.

"As for the possible link of Iraq with terrorism, the 9/11 commission says there weren?t any, but Bush says that there was simply because there was."

No the 9/11 conclusion said that Iraq doesn't have connection or link to 9/11. They clearly stated it didn't mean Al Qaeda or other terrorists organizations weren't dealing with Saddam.

"He provides no feasible evidence or even a clear explanation for his claims. Even if there was, does that mean that we should invade every single country in the world with suspected links to terrorism?"

NO we don't need to "invade" every country in the world that has susupected links. War is necessary when it is necessary. Diplomacy is an option that has been and is being used very much so (Pakistan, Saudi Arabia), much more than war.

"What about 9/11 itself, do you think it could have been prevented?"

Yes it could have been prevented if the last administration paid attention to terrorists and responded after the first world trade center bombing, instead of chasing 18 year old interns.

"Do you think we would be safer if we spent more on intelligence than in the military?"

Clearify this statement. Sometimes the military and intelligence go hand in hand. One is dependent on the other depending on the situation.

By the way, what do you think is the Muslim world?s impression of the US so far?

They hate us, they always hated us, and they will continue to hate us because we support the only democracy in the middle east...Israel. They feel that Jews run America, LOL.

As far as what I think about the whole thing, I really don't care what they think. They feel that blowing themselves up and killing innocent civilians and justifying it legitimate, or teaching 3 year old girls that Jews are apes and pigs, or teaching 8 year old boys in simulated camps on how to kidnap Jews and Americans is not a healthy culture or civlization. They started the war on 9/11, we will finish it.

What do you think is the rest of the world?s impression of the US so far?

The rest of the world, hmm..I dunno. Based on the media spins provided by Max (especially Australia's media) I am not sure if the rest of the world is getting the correct information. So I can only assume that unless and until 9/11 in their own countries (based on the moral values of these so called terrorists, if you are not a muslim you are an infidel and you have to die, I think its only a matter of time) happens, they won't support or understand what US "feels".

by oz_media

I was waiting for the punchline..........it didn't come.

WOW, this guy's serious! Despite the message, it's a little loud, a tacky midi track (wher'd he find THAT)and...well.....RED...and WHITE.....and BLUE....and get me a bucket.

Priceless, but I'd say he is SOLD!! :-)

by pctech

While everyone can agree that it easy to like someone that "cowboy up" when they have been knocked down, it is harder to agree with someone that "cowboys" their way into a bad situation. Nearly anyone in uniform, policeman, fireman, rescue workers, and military can agree that the quickest way to become a part of the problem and not a part of the solution is to try to "John Wayne" your way into a bad situation.

All of the "cowboys" depicted in the link are former or present actors. What do any of these men have to do with GW and the "Cowboy Way" image he tries to portray?

by aldanatech

With all due respect, I believe your answer is the result of what the Bush administration wants all of us to believe. For one thing, it wasn?t a smart decision ?not? to wait for UN because eventually it turned out that there were no WMD, so Iraq was really not a treat to the US. Those countries that opposed the war in Iraq did so because there was simply not enough evidence to back it up. Also, remember the UN weapons inspectors were pulled out a lot earlier before they could finish the job to bring in military action. Going to war was a hasty decision. Now the country is seen as some sort of a liar and a bully.

Even Colin Powel once said on an interview that the president rushed him kind of hard to find some means to get Saddam Hussein out of power. Some of the countries of the coalition already pulled their troops out of Iraq, primarily because they consider that this is going nowhere. Spain?s main reason to pull out is because ?this war was a disaster, and it is still a disaster?. As for Bin Laden, it seems that he is still alive and well. As a matter of fact, there was a recent recording of him saying that he was planning a big time attack on the US on Election Day.

There are a couple of reasons why Islamic extremist kill themselves for terrorism purposes. They don?t fear dead. From a very young age they are taught that god is waiting for them to reward them for their sacrifice in the name of their religion, and they generally believe that attacks from the US on Islamic regions are attacks on their religion. As long as this goes on, terrorism will continue its threat on the world.

Now don?t think George W. Bush is such a nice guy himself. As a matter of fact, he attempted to place a nuclear waste land very close to border with Mexico when he was governor of Texas. This was in clear violation of an international treaty. The reason why he didn?t make it was because people from both sides protested heavily and government officials fought against it. But let me tell you, he was just one step away from making it. He never admitted he was wrong, much less give apologize. The 2000 election day was very strange and when I found it he was elected I got pissed! I continued to ask myself: ?How can somebody who doesn?t even have the ethics to comply with a simply treaty can have what it takes to properly run a country?!?

by dbertsche

Give me a break, if you think Bush is Bad wait until "Old Flip-Flop" gets in if he wins.

by thechas

Since the plan to invade Iraq was first announced, I have had my own cynical views of why we invaded Iraq.

1. The cabinet members from George H.W. Bush's team felt that Iraq was unfinished business.
They were disappointed that the coalition in the first Gulf war stopped the US from toppling Saddam then.

2. With Saddam removed from power, there were jobs available for US contractors in the Iraqi oil fields.
Iraq is a much more "lucrative" target then Afghanistan as Iraq actually has natural resources that can be converted into money to pay contractors for rebuilding the country.

3. The invasion of Iraq is / was part of a scheme to assist in the reelection of GWB.
With the Iraqi oil flowing into the world market, the cost of crude oil was supposed to drop significantly last year.
This would result in lower US fuel and energy prices. That would then boost the US manufacturing economy.

Nothing helps an incumbent President like a booming economy.

Chas

by garion11

the fact that the oil prices have been increasing, jobs and the economy are still somewhat not there yet (a year after the war) just shot your theory to s**t.

So anymore conspiracy theories??

by oz_media

I am definitely not going into a four day rant with you but you have reached some early conclusions.

Oil prices have been decreasing in Vancouver already and just across the border gas has dropped considerably BUT it is still far from affordable or even reaosn able yet. The Iraqi il fields are not producing enough oil yet to make a substantial difference and many crews and contractors are not in Iraq yet as the violence is still a major issue and daily car bombs and attacks on US soldiers and the Iraqi government continues. The day WILL come, next year I would guess, when American contractors are all over Iraq along with all the others including Canda and Australia. They are just waiting for the dust to settle still (bad pun sorry).

This WILL boost the economy, as the fields are brought up to full production, it WILL reduce gas pricesin the US.

So I think Chas was speaking on a basis of long term goals, in which case I couldn't agree more.

by thechas

From my point of view, the "plan" to boost the economy with lower energy costs failed.

Why?

Iraq's oil infrastructure was in worse shape than anticipated.
Combined with sabotage, the oil just has not been flowing from the Iraqi oil fields as needed.

China and the third world countries are using more oil every day.
Increasing global demand was not factored into the plan.

Opec decided to cut production just as Iraqi oil was starting to flow.

By the way, I never said there was any conspiracy.
I just speculated on a possible "political" motivation for the invasion of Iraq.

And yes, I am personally convinced that the "real" reason for invading Iraq had little to do with weapons of mass destruction, or global terrorism.

After all, nearly every reason for the war, and every report of "good" news about the economy and Iraq is proven to be exaggerated several weeks after it is announced.

During the 2000 campaign GWB claimed to be a uniter not a divider.
He has succeeded in uniting the global terrorism community. Giving them a common goal of attacking US interests.
On the plus side, GWB has also made the US Democratic party the most united it has ever been.

Chas

by garion11

How dare you call Oz an arse hole?? He is much worse than that. Stop misleading the public, get your facts straight.

by oz_media

Hey Jim, like you said, can't you take a little humour once in a while.

My post was a spin on your title, chill the hel out.

And be careful with your friend Garion, he's like a bad dose, scrub it well man.

by pctech

I think you have covered everything fairly well Chas, and proves that you have paid attention to the details.

Bush has proven to be the great uniter, indeed. As you have stated, he has united the Democratic base and has done so with the efficiency that Clinton had in uniting the Republican base. Someday we may become lucky enough to have a president that unites Democrats and Republicans alike towards the common good of this nation as opposed to the common good of a political party. Rarely throughout the history of this great nation has this been the case. This should not imply that it can not happen again. We, as voters, just have to want it to be so and get the attention of both major parties to move towards this goal. Balance our deficets, both domestic and with foreign trade. Keep spending low but, have the courage to spend when spending is needed. Keep taxes low but, have the responsibility to tax when taxes are needed. The UNITED States of America should be more than just the name of a country. This should be our common goal.

Thank you for comments, Chas. We need more with the clear mind and thoughts that you have exhibited here. You show courage to go against the grain and intelligence as to when to do so.

by dbertsche

It looks to me like, from the posts I've read, everyone has conviently forgotten that Iraq was in violation of numerous UN Resolutions stretching out over many years. Therefore the actions taken were actually a continuation of the first war.

Should we have kept going back to the totally inept United Nations and getting more resolutions passed only to be ignored by Iraq? There comes a point in time when action is required.

The only reason the French and Germans were so against it is because they were making money off of Iraq and they didn't want to see that come to an end.

Support our Troops and our commander-in-chief.

by cactus pete

Being held in violation of UN resolutions does not necessarily allow any other nation the right to invade. Since the UN was inspecting Iraq to see, for sure, whether or not there was a violation we should have let them finish. More and more the inspectors were establishing that the "common knowledge" that Iraq possessed WMD was to be questioned. Waiting any longer and the best excuse to invade Iraq was beginning to look like it just might fade.

I did not feel that what we had at the time rose to the level of forcing the US to change its historical perspective of no preemptive strikes against other sovereign nations.

Yes, Hussein was a bad guy - one who was propped up by earlier US administrations. [An all too common trend.] We should have supported the people of Iraq in their rise against Hussein, but we did not [after "leading them on" that we would aid them]. That resulted in the slaughter of man people. The hands of the US are not entirely clean.

Would Hussein have been in violation of these UN mandates had the US not given him the materials to do so? Was he actually in violation? [Or had he used all of the gas in the Iran/Iraq war and whatever was left over on the Kurds during their revolt against him - again, which was left unsupported by the US?]

Why was the US meddling in the affairs of Iraq and Afghanistan [where we were supporting and training bin Laden] so many years ago? Well, because they sat in strategic places with respect to Oil. Iraq sits on big reserves while Afghanistan has a major pipeline. The connection between the US interest there and Oil is stronger and more evident than anything produced about Iraq and al Qaeda.

So were France and Germany opposed to the war for JUST monetary reasons? Unlikely. I have no direct monetary stake in the event and I was not supportive of the idea, either.

by dbertsche

While it's true violating UN resolutions does not give a country a right to invade, what should the US have done then, wait another 10 years for the UN to try to get Iraq to comply? Remember part of the problem here was that Iraq was suppose to offer proof they had no WMD, they failed to do this, the burden of proof was on them not the US or the rest of the world.

As far as the inspections that were being conducted, they were a farce. There were numerous times when inspectors were not allowed into particular areas. Are you so naive to think they wouldn't hide things and/or move things given the chance?

I'm generally not in favor of preemptive strikes but in the world we're now living in it can't be ruled out. There are those out there who would love nothing better than to deliver an even more devestating attack on us than 9/11 and we need to be ready.

Yes, we have supported questionable characters before because it was in our best interest at that particular point in time to do so. We can't go back and redo history, what's been done is over with. Things change which requires changes in our response. This is nothing new and we are not the only country that operates this way.

Why is there always this big "clamor" about oil? It's not like we're taking the oil. What would these countries do if all of sudden no one needed their damn oil? They benefit because they have a resource that's in demand. Sure a lot of economies in the world are dependent on using oil, what would you have us do? I do think the US needs to develop another fuel source so we can get away from depending on foreign oil but until that happens we have to deal with the situation.

Concerning your comments about France and Germany. Making money was not the only reason but it was one of the reasons. It is a well known fact that France sold a lot of military equipment to Iraq and both countries were heavily involved in building infrastructure within Iraq so to say making money was not a part of it is to deny known facts.

by oz_media

Part of the sacntions the the US placed upon Saddam was that ALL goods MUST be inspected by US incpectors before they were released into Iraq.

These inspections of much needed Food and Medical supplies were held indefinitely by the US insspectors, SOME inspections taking in excess of 9 months, as outlined by the US Embassy. So the US was not holding up their end of the deal either. One thing I noticed when the US is trying to instill blame on people and come out smelling of roses is that they will automatically point the finger at everyone BUT they will never look at their own actions as a reason for the problems.

No I am not saying the US is as guilty as anyone or that it's all your fault, but you cannot start looking at every other country involved and start pushing blame on peple if you are just as much your doing as it is theirs.

This is the habit of the US that REALKLY pisses people off, the HOLIER THAN THOU attitude that you have done nor could do no wrong under your presidential democracy. Pure crap, you guys screwed up too, you just won't admit it as you refuse to see your own faults.

by sullyman

How quick some of you are to cast blame on other countries because they didn't support your war. Your mess, your problem....

The US created the situation in Iraq, the US funded Saddam when he was useful knowing that he was a madman. The US supported OBL knowing that he was a madman....

Just because we didn't support your war, does not mean that we had something to gain by not fighting by your side.

by hal 9000

Now well after the event it is miles too late to even consider asking this question and even if WMD had been found what threat could they pose to the US?

Perhaps Saddam was going to make a Fission bomb and "FedEx it to Washington" that would be about the only way that anything like that could have an impact on the US.

The reality of the position was GWB needed a Scape Goat and Saddam fitted the bill nicely as North Korea who is a very real threat is just too big of a mess to stir up again. A Gulf Way Veteran asked me why did I think that Iraq was targeted and his response was that they where not in a position to defeat or for that matter even slow down the invasion where as NK would have bitten back hard.

Col

by gbrownlee

As history has shown, theres nothing like a war to boost a sluggish economy.

Theres something I don't understand and that is, If america is such a peace loving nation, why are you in so many darn wars?

by cactus pete

The poster is an PC Tech and he has a life outside of work which he would want to share / debate with other people who share similar interests and / or have similar backgrounds.

What did your posting have to do with the thread at all?

by oz_media

Tech Republic is not JUST for IT information. If you look at the Discussions topics yuou can filter the non-IT discussions by choosing the topic of your choice, MS Server, Novell, security, etc.

THIS dscussion would fit into the GENERAL discussions forum, which is simply a 'water cooler' where we discuss anything that interests us. It allows us to take a break from the droll and hum drum IT world.

You can simply go to the front DISCUSSIONS page and select the topics that interest you and you have no need to pore through non-IT topics if you don't wish to. The choice is yours.

by thechas

MD Harrison,

If you take a look, the Miscellaneous section of the Discussion Center is often used like the water cooler at work.

It is a place to exchange ideas and blow off steam on non-IT related topics.

I consider many of the peers who post to these discussions to be my friends.
Even if we do not always agree on the topic under discussion.

If you desire to see only IT related discussions, I suggest that you avoid the Miscellaneous section.

However, you can learn a lot about your peers who use these forums by browsing through a few of these "off topic" discussions.

Chas

by oz_media

While I am avidly against Bush's handling of foreign policies and using scare tactics to coerce the US population into backing the need for a premature invasion (I think it was needed but not as a solo 'cowboy' mission), such websites are the reason that nobody will give the left wing a second of their time.

Although many of the points are probably worth a second look by Bush supporters, the website itself is DRAINED of any integriy purely by its garbage appearance and style.

This informtaion is available from much more credible sources.

by oz_media

On the right hand nav bar, there is a link called 'Viral Videos' Check out B7B at The Gay Bar and the best ever, STATE OF THE UNION, it is REALLY well done!

by antipodes

It appears that some American members of this website are finally waking up to the fact that Bush pulled the wool over their eyes, and that the flawed "intelligence" which was used to justify the war, was also used by the other two initial members of the COW, Australia and Britain.

While apparently Tony Blair has been forgiven by his comrades for being sucked into this illegal and disastrous debacle, Australia's John Howard and George W. Bush will no doubt pay the price of their foolhardy actions at elections to be held this year.

So I would be pleased if American peers who now consider the invasion of Iraq to have been an unwise and unjustified course of action, could identify their nationality in these discussions, so that we may know if there has been a genuine shift of viewpoint by at least some Americans.

by defdc

I think that our attitudes are somewhat less than caring, certainly complacent. If the only reason we went to war was to create one better day for the women and children of Iraq it was worth it! Open your eyes and look at the life style, the demeaning treatment, the mind bending education, the lack of seeing a new day with some hope or joy for all of the people of Iraq. NOW save the talk about it isn't up to us to push our thinking on others. If we don't allow freedom it ring in every opportunity, you will always have what you saw in Iraq. Imagine if Hitler had achieved his goal, we would all be at the mercy of his sick mind. Thank God for men and women who feel that freedom is for all creation, not just for a few.

by maecuff

Then there are atrocities committed against mankind all over the world. That argument does not hold water.

by oz_media

While these citizens of Iraq did not have it as good as you or I (by out standards) they were hardly repressed by Saddam the way women in Afghanistan were, they are two diferent places.

The ruined streets and infrastructure is due to th econstant state of war Iraq has been in, not from Saddam killing his citizens.

Certainly I will agree he was an opressive dictator and I would never defend him, BUT these people weren't being repressed the way so many people seem to think. Just your post stating "Open your eyes and look at the life style, the demeaning treatment, the mind bending education, the lack of seeing a new day with some hope or joy for all of the people of Iraq."...reflects this well.

These people had lives, had schools aand sewage/water treatment, much of the Iraqi inrastructure, including oil production was damaged due to the constant state of war Iraq has been in, not solely because Saddam was destroying it and repressing Iraqi citizens.

by marketing

We went to war for several reasons. I'm just happy to live in the greatest Country in the World. We always wanted to kill Saddam, but we never really had a good reason. He had it coming and I'm sure he'll get all that he deserves and more.

Thanks to the USA. :0)

by jimhm

Haven't found a working copy of the one Oz sent - but its got to be good.... people have way to much time on there hands to develop these flash things...

But I got to say thanks - those provide a true leavity to this crazy thing we call politics.

by oz_media

They are actually all available at campchaos.com, just go to the 'OTHER SHOWS' link in the left nav bar. The very last one 'Viral Videos' links to them all.

'State of the Union' is just VERY well edited (a glitch in the breakdown of the word arsenal to sound like 'arse') but the rest is near perfect.

try it from here http://www.campchaos.com and follow the links as described above.

by sullyman

Was Saddam a threat to US national security? But, lets draw an analogy. Democratic or as some call it Republic Representation based systems are founded on some very simple principals. The first being innocent till proven guilty...

GWB is now beginning to take steps backwards, Iran might not have been as involved as we first thought. Actually, it is beginning to look like it was Iran. That my friends is a very big mistake. Or was it? Was Iraq a show of power? The least threatening of the AOE? We will never know......

This point from a previous thread...

The US government has continually been blaming Canada for the increasing POT problem in the US. These facts just released

Imported from Mexico - 96%
Imported from Canada - 4%

Quick to accuse and slow to acknowledge mistakes....

by jamesrl

In the ongoing Canada-US relationship, it seems our actual government bodies actually work well together - its the politicians, who in an effort to get attention from their voters, make outrageous claims.

I'm not suprised by the pot figures - the RCMP and American authorities work well together.

American politicians were quick to blame Canada for security issues after 9/11, even after their own internal sources proved that none, not one, of the 9/11 terrorists came to the US through Canada.

The same can be said for mad cow, softwood lumber, salmon fishing treaties and so on. I was amazed when it was announced that the 2 Great Lakes Provinces (it all flows into the St. Lawrence and Quebec)and 8 Great Lake States came to an agreement on water conservation and export permits. I just hope that no US senator decides to campaign against it.

James

by oz_media

Canadians are simply reusing to enter the US the way we so freely did for so many years.

Stores and malls (Bellis fair in Washington foe example) are advertising BLOWOUT prices all oer the Vancouver Lower Mainland as they are starving for the Canadian dollars that built these HUGE shoppig districts.

A great deal of the Canadian population has had SOMEONE, at SOMETIME smoke pot or roll pot in his/her car. Even if a USED car, people will have smoked pot in it before they even bought it.

Well after a $250.00 detailing session, you can still be nailed at the border.
Even rental cars (probably the worst) will have pot smoked or rolled in them. It simply isn't SANE to cross a border into the US as the paranoia level increases at the borders.

Now add that to the fact that America is not a SAFE place to visit anymore, who knows when Bush's next enemy will attack, he as so many of them now?

Many people in Canada just don't want to hear about America anymore, yet alone spend their money in te USA.

As for you figures, I think they are VERY low, there is a MAJOR problem with Caadian marijuana shipments going to the USA and being traded pound for pound for cocaine. The cocaine has a good street value here, pot is as common as water.

by tomsal

Simple. The USA was attacked with our pants down so to speak. We were hurt. We were pissed off. We needed to get revenge. So there you go.

Not saying its right - morally or ethically, not saying its acting mature, but you asked and I answered. That's why we went to war. Plain and simple. All the other theories of why is just fluff and trying to throw a distraction from the real reason which I just explained.

Funny when you think about it....more often than not the truth is plain and simple.

by hal 9000

After all the Saudi's would have been the logical alternative as that is where Ben Laden comes from as well as most of the money backing that organization not to mention the people.

Col

by oz_media

Iraq was an easy target, Saudi's would have actually put up a better fight. Conmsidering the mess in Baghdad, can ou imagine th emess if USA attack Saudi's?

by garion11

The issues that faced the Bush administration:

1 - we were viciously attacked by terrorists on 9/11 and it's time to fix a big problem
2 - who is the real enemy here? One of the most important questions that faced the administration (was it only al Queda? was there any help from governments of other countries? are more attacks likely? etc.)
3 - final answer - al Queda did it, but al Queda's message is identical to 40 other terrorist groups that operate freely in 22 Arab nations so all terrorist groups are a threat to America's security.
4 - Since all terrorist organizations are a threat...not just al Queda, declare war on terrorism
5 - the next big questions facing the administration: Who's funding them? Who's training them? Who's giving them freedom to train and prepare for attacks? Who's most likely to help any of the terrorist groups get extraordinary weapons (chemical, biological, nuclear, etc)?
6 - The Afghanistan Taliban gov't is under complete control of al Queda and must be taken down and replaced with a gov't that won't let Bin Laden dictate their every move.
6 - Outside of Afghanistan, the major players that are most likely to feed weapons to terrorists are: Iraq, Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Libya, Lebanon, North Korea, Sudan, etc.
7 - the next big question, "what can America do about it"?

We cannot attack Saudi Arabia because they have feigned cooperation and the Saudi royal family has so much money tied up in our stock market that if they were to pull their money out, the stock market would crash and cripple the American economy. Also, we are helplessly dependant on Saudi oil...without it, America is shut down and would act like a plane that just ran out of gas while flying at 13,500 feet. Conclusion: Saudi Arabia out!

We cannot attack Iran as they have feigned cooperation and we have no proof that the Iranian government had anything to do with 9/11. Conclusion: Iran out! But put them on notice that we are on to them and watching them closely.

We cannot attack Libya as they have feigned cooperation and we have no proof that the Libyan government had anything to do with 9/11. Conclusion: Libya out! But put them on notice that we are on to them and watching them closely

We cannot attack Syria/Lebanon as they have feigned cooperation and we have no proof that the Syrian/Lebanon government had anything to do with 9/11, even though we know they are scum bags in the highest degree. Conclusion: Syria/Lebanon out! But put them on notice that we are on to them and watching them closely.

We cannot attack North Korea because it is not in the heart of the Islamic extremists terrorist groups and is a bigger problem for China and Japan, who can keep them in check. Attacking North Korea would have little impact on the terrorist activity (planning, funding, training, etc.) other than take away one of 22 countries that could eventually sell extraordinary weapons to terrorists. Conclusion: N. Korea out. But put them on notice that we are on to them and watching them closely.

Iraq.............hmmmm........they are every bit as much a problem as Saudi Arabia, Iran and Syria, but they are not cooperating or feigning cooperation with the US and we are not being held by the balls needing their oil or their money in our stock market. Also, Iraq has by far the largest and most advanced military of all the 22 Islamic countries that are supporting terrorists. Also, Iraq also has ignored 18 UN resolutions trying to bring them back into civility and to stop attempting to get more powerful weapons. Also, Iraq also is under the terms of surrender to the US from Gulf War 1. Also, Iraq has thrown inspectors out. also, Iraq has been firing daily on US military personnel for the last 8 years. Also, Iraq has chemical and biological weapons that are unaccounted for and we know they aren't afraid to use them as they used them on their own people. Also, our intelligence agencies as well as Britains has discovered that Iraq has been trying to secure enriched uranium from Africa. Also, Iraq is strategically located in the heart of the terrorist problem area which allows the American military to be stationed on the borders of Syria, Iran, and Saudi Arabia and no longer need to spend billions and plead with an Arab nation to use their land to fight a war with one or both arms tied behind our backs. Bingo!!! Iraq is the best option and from a strategic military point of view, offers the best position to have a footing for the coming years to fight terrorism that is likely to be a 10 - 20 year war. It's a no brainer.....go into Iraq.

As far as trying to install a democratic government goes, that is necessary for several reasons. 1) the first taste of freedom by an Islamic country might become so eniticing to neighboring muslims that they want the same thing in their countries and will do more to pressure their dictator run countries to give democracy and freedom a chance. 2) If we don't influence what the next government will be, there will be a vacuum that gets filled by the most ruthless and best organized despot to replace Saddam and we're back to square one. 3) If we are on good terms with the new Iraqi government, then we can buy Iraqian oil for the first time in decades and put pressure on Saudi Arabia to start bringing their prices down as a big time competitor in the oil business joins the international game. 4) From a humanitarian point of view, it gives the people of Iraq the opportunity to not live in fear and to join the civilized world of open thinking, open speech, etc., without the fear of being killed enmasse.

by garion11

You can all sit here and debate and talk and even call each other names as to who "mislead" or "lied" to whom.

This game of power has certain rules, terrorists don't play by those rules. America after 9/11 is not going to take that chance, and will not "ASK UN" for permission to defend itself nor prevent any attacks. If other countries don't like what we are doing, then the other countries and its people don't understand America and her people's prespective (just as some people on this board accuse the American people of).

by sullyman

I might not agree with the reasons, but I do think that you hit the nail on the head!!!

by hal 9000

Try to look as if you are doing something but do as little as possible and as cheaply as possible and certainly do not stir up a hornets nest right?

About the Islamic countries seeing a "Democratic Government" you should have spelled it out a bit more as there are numerous Islamic Countries who have a Democratically Elected Government just not in the Middle East.

And with Israel almost next door they can see what it is like ands to date have refused to have anything to do with this system of Government even the Palestine's Elected someone little better than a dictator recently as he was the head of the PLO and not for any other reason. These people have a LONG TRADITION of being led by their noses and currently seem to like it so I for one do not really see the great experiment in Iraq being the hoped for success that you seem to think it will be. We already have had accusations that the new US supported Iraq leader has shown his true colors and it is no better than his predecessor just better hidden.

By the way Libya was held responsible for the Pan Am flight crashing over Scotland all those years ago and only very recently gave up the people responsible who where in fact spy's for Libya. All that action brought about was tighter security at airports nothing more.

I can however see just why the US would not like to attack North Korea as they are still smarting from the "Police Action" all those years ago where at best a Peace Treaty with the North Koreans was the only "Face Saving" way out for the combined Allied Forces who while better armed where held to a virtual stop by the more willing North Koreans and was a direct result for the Nam fiasco as the US needed to reestablish their supposed superiority on the "Field of Battle" and we all know where that one ended don't we?

by jimhm

The question is valid - the real questions that should be asked are:

1) What would a working/successful democratic form of government do to the middle east?

2) Do the major of these people want these freedoms (not want the media wants us to hear - right or left). What do these people want.

These are the two major questions that should be answered... 1 - could mean much more involvement - 2 - is it worth the price we are paying.

by admin

What does freedom actually mean to the average Iraqi?

We like to talk about freedom an awful lot, but it's a pretty difficult concept to pin down, especially across cultures. Almost every country is for freedom, but the definitions of where it should start and stop, (and even what it actually means) are not easy to produce, and often the source of more conflict than resolution in a dispute.

Is freedom the ability to do whatever one wishes?
Can anyone truly be free?
What do we do when freedoms conflict?

Freedom is great in theory, but living together as a free society is by necessity defined as it develops according to it's own history, customs and moral codes.

by jamesrl

for the fact that they may want the freedom to be a radical muslim theocracy - or at least many of them may want that.

Don't forget that Hitler was massively popular in Germany and won an election.

We should not be so "western" centred to think they all want exactly the kind of democracy that we want.

James

by garion11

You know I am beginning to think that these people don't want freedom and democracy. They are happy the way they are with their opressive non democratic governements. Atleast from what I see as a lack of response against their own governments but they have crazy obsession with driving Israel out of the middle east.

I see a lot of Palistinians screaming and yelling about Israel, but not ONE Arab nation lifts their hand to welcome these so called "refugees" to their country. They keep these people opressed so they can blame Israel for everything.

Lets face it, is it in our intersts?? Yes most definitely it is in America's interest to see successfull democratic governments in the middle east, but in the end it has to be up to the poeple to sustain it. Watch for Iran, if there is going to be a Democratic revolution in the middle east, Iran is where its going to start.

by sullyman

Democracy if it is ever going to evolve in the middle east is going to take time. As much as we try and differentiate church ( read religion ) and state, they are integral parts of each other. Now what I am going to say does not mean that I want to change religions in the middle east......

For centuries the middle east has been a hot bed of traditional, fundamentalist, and extremist religions, and in most middle eastern religions there is no room for democratic process ( or democracy as we know it ). Trying to instill democracy as we know it on countries that have been living in dictatorships, or monarchist regimes is a long long process. We are asking people who have been living for generations in what they feel is normal, and introducing them to a concept that is foreign to them. Introduce them to democracy, the concepts and ideals and let them decide if they want to evolve their political system. In some cases democracy is not the answer, in theirs it might be. But, it is not our place to force our beliefs on them. It's the Crusades of the middle ages all over again, only this time we are promoting it as democracy.........

by hal 9000

Was only a "Token" effort to fly the flag?

There must be cheaper ways of getting your point across than what has happened surely!

by oz_media

Well what the news says is one thing.

What actually happens is another, other than that I will not offer anymore information online.

I will tell you for certain, coke is traded straight across for BC Bud, not even the best BC bud either. Coke today is definitely not what it was 20 years ago though. Today, coke is mainly speed or MDA as opposed to cocaine, the price is about 1/3 of what it was in the 80's and the quality matches price. That's what I hear anyhow, I work with touring rock bands but haven't touched the stuff in years.

by oz_media

It seems the US administration feels it knows what everyone wants and needs. THis is why people are calling it arrogance or sticking their nose in other people's business.

in the UK 3500 Iraqi exiles wrote a plea for Blair to Liberate Iraq, was this in THIER best interests or the interests of those who were actually living in Iraq?

How can someone in one country possibly even GUESS what is best for another country's people? They simply cannot, no matter how much we THINK Iraq is better off, perhaps they were fine in thier own minds before. I think World Affairs should be called Other People's affairs.

by garion11

Yes Democracy will take time no doubt. It always does, Japan and Germany under the Marshall plan took 20 years to get back on their feet after WWII, but still nevertheless, they are very much successful democratic countries and in fact one of the richer and more powerful countries in the world today.

I understand it takes time but where I disagree is this "it is not our place to force our beliefs" statement. Yes, every nation has the right to self-rule, part of being a Democracy is that. But after a vicious attack, we are forced (in national intrests and the survival of US) to go in there and change it for them. Believe me US has its own issues, noone wants to deal with this Terrorism issue. We can concentrate our resources on other much more important domestic and foreign affairs. This wasn't something we asked for, but another 9/11 prevention is the goal and in order for that to succeed, you must take the cause of 9/11 out. Its not just terrorists, its this as you said, "hot bed of traditional, fundamentalist, and extremist religions, and in most middle eastern religions there is no room for democratic process". Will they grasp upon the idea of Democracy and fight for their freedoms instead of this obsession with Israel?? Time only can tell and for their sake, I certainly hope that they do embrace the idea of a Democracy.

by oz_media

But you are continually mentionig 9/11 and America responding to being attacked.

Saddam was't the mastermind behind 9/11, in fact they have since said he had NOTHING to do with 9/11 at all and it was the Saudis and Iran you should be looking at.

With the war in Iran being such a wasted effort, how can it then be justified to go after someone not involved in such an attack, it seems like you had to get someone, BinLaden effectively eluded the USA and Saddam hid in a hole in his homeland. It's easier to get SOMEONE than to get the target you originally aimed for.

Perhaps your military needs to adopt the RCMP's slogan of 'always catching thier man'.

Perhaps this would in turn lead to credibility for the US forces and leaders who feel it is thier duty to police ad protect the world from hidden enemies.

It's like Evil Kenevil (sp?) missing a 150' jump over a bunch of buses, then expectig to gain his fame back by jumping 20' over some Hot Wheels cars. Or Stuart on Mad TV, "Look what I can do!"

by garion11

No matter how many times you repeat this tiresome rhetoric about Saddam and Iraq connection with 9/11, you keep missing the point about Bush's overall plan. Read below.

The issues that faced the Bush administration:

1 - we were viciously attacked by terrorists on 9/11 and it's time to fix a big problem
2 - who is the real enemy here? One of the most important questions that faced the administration (was it only al Queda? was there any help from governments of other countries? are more attacks likely? etc.)
3 - final answer - al Queda did it, but al Queda's message is identical to 40 other terrorist groups that operate freely in 22 Arab nations so all terrorist groups are a threat to America's security.
4 - Since all terrorist organizations are a threat...not just al Queda, declare war on terrorism
5 - the next big questions facing the administration: Who's funding them? Who's training them? Who's giving them freedom to train and prepare for attacks? Who's most likely to help any of the terrorist groups get extraordinary weapons (chemical, biological, nuclear, etc)?
6 - The Afghanistan Taliban gov't is under complete control of al Queda and must be taken down and replaced with a gov't that won't let Bin Laden dictate their every move.
6 - Outside of Afghanistan, the major players that are most likely to feed weapons to terrorists are: Iraq, Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Libya, Lebanon, North Korea, Sudan, etc.
7 - the next big question, "what can America do about it"?

We cannot attack Saudi Arabia because they have feigned cooperation and the Saudi royal family has so much money tied up in our stock market that if they were to pull their money out, the stock market would crash and cripple the American economy. Also, we are helplessly dependant on Saudi oil...without it, America is shut down and would act like a plane that just ran out of gas while flying at 13,500 feet. Conclusion: Saudi Arabia out!

We cannot attack Iran as they have feigned cooperation and we have no proof that the Iranian government had anything to do with 9/11. Conclusion: Iran out! But put them on notice that we are on to them and watching them closely.

We cannot attack Libya as they have feigned cooperation and we have no proof that the Libyan government had anything to do with 9/11. Conclusion: Libya out! But put them on notice that we are on to them and watching them closely

We cannot attack Syria/Lebanon as they have feigned cooperation and we have no proof that the Syrian/Lebanon government had anything to do with 9/11, even though we know they are scum bags in the highest degree. Conclusion: Syria/Lebanon out! But put them on notice that we are on to them and watching them closely.

We cannot attack North Korea because it is not in the heart of the Islamic extremists terrorist groups and is a bigger problem for China and Japan, who can keep them in check. Attacking North Korea would have little impact on the terrorist activity (planning, funding, training, etc.) other than take away one of 22 countries that could eventually sell extraordinary weapons to terrorists. Conclusion: N. Korea out. But put them on notice that we are on to them and watching them closely.

Iraq.............hmmmm........they are every bit as much a problem as Saudi Arabia, Iran and Syria, but they are not cooperating or feigning cooperation with the US and we are not being held by the balls needing their oil or their money in our stock market. Also, Iraq has by far the largest and most advanced military of all the 22 Islamic countries that are supporting terrorists. Also, Iraq also has ignored 18 UN resolutions trying to bring them back into civility and to stop attempting to get more powerful weapons. Also, Iraq also is under the terms of surrender to the US from Gulf War 1. Also, Iraq has thrown inspectors out. also, Iraq has been firing daily on US military personnel for the last 8 years. Also, Iraq has chemical and biological weapons that are unaccounted for and we know they aren't afraid to use them as they used them on their own people. Also, our intelligence agencies as well as Britains has discovered that Iraq has been trying to secure enriched uranium from Africa. Also, Iraq is strategically located in the heart of the terrorist problem area which allows the American military to be stationed on the borders of Syria, Iran, and Saudi Arabia and no longer need to spend billions and plead with an Arab nation to use their land to fight a war with one or both arms tied behind our backs. Bingo!!! Iraq is the best option and from a strategic military point of view, offers the best position to have a footing for the coming years to fight terrorism that is likely to be a 10 - 20 year war. It's a no brainer.....go into Iraq.

As far as trying to install a democratic government goes, that is necessary for several reasons. 1) the first taste of freedom by an Islamic country might become so eniticing to neighboring muslims that they want the same thing in their countries and will do more to pressure their dictator run countries to give democracy and freedom a chance. 2) If we don't influence what the next government will be, there will be a vacuum that gets filled by the most ruthless and best organized despot to replace Saddam and we're back to square one. 3) If we are on good terms with the new Iraqi government, then we can buy Iraqian oil for the first time in decades and put pressure on Saudi Arabia to start bringing their prices down as a big time competitor in the oil business joins the international game. 4) From a humanitarian point of view, it gives the people of Iraq the opportunity to not live in fear and to join the civilized world of open thinking, open speech, etc., without the fear of being killed enmasse.

I am not sure where you keep coming up with "protecting and policing the world from hidden enemies" LOL. We frankly don't care, we do have better things to do. The enemies aren't hidden, they are right out in the open, in the terrorist camps and streets of certain countries in the middle east. The enemies' philosophy and culture is what is hidden.

Why do you keep insisting on the war being such a wasted effort? Its not over, its LONG LONG fight. Politically, financially, militarily, diplomatically.

As far as Saddam and 9/11, again read the above posting.

I will agree where Bush screwed up is in declaring he has WMD (although at that time the intel stated that he did or was pursuing), what he should have said was the above which is closer to the truth, but again can he say this in international waters?? its like showing all your cards.

As far as Saudis and Iran?? How do you know its not being done? As I said, war is necessary when it is necessary, diplomacy, covert ops, black ops, etc...are also being used.

by garion11

A key point you missed is, this "project" takes TIME. Bush never mislead anyone about that, and frankly commonsense should tell you that building a Democracy is a LONG LONG process. 20-30 years is a conservative estimate. After 20 years of war in Afghanistan and Iraq, and a 1000 years of living under fundamental and extremist living conditions (politically) this won't disappear overnight.

Yes you are right, Israel's influence is very much a big factor. Here is an article...

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040718/ap_on_re_mi_ea/israel_palestinians&cid=540&ncid=716

Again it takes time, granted you need changing factors to fuel the process/democratic revolution etc...I like to think Iraq would be that change.

As far as other Islamic democratic countries, there is no doubt there are, but are they influencing other countries in the middle east to join their democracy, to beome democratic?? other regimes to change their tyrannical ways?? No. Someone has to, after 9/11, US had no choice.

by cactus pete

You want to allow for 20 to 30 years, if not more, to let democracy catch on in Iraq, but you cite 10 years as being way to long to 'prove' compliance with UN resolutions - an organization you feel the US shouldn't have to prove anything to...

by garion11

"You want to allow for 20 to 30 years, if not more, to let democracy catch on in Iraq, but you cite 10 years as being way to long to 'prove' compliance with UN resolutions - an organization you feel the US shouldn't have to prove anything to..."

Words are funny you know that. They can be twisted, spun, streeeetched, taken out of context to have a WHOLE new meaning.

""You want to allow for 20 to 30 years, if not more, to let democracy catch on in Iraq"

NO, I am nor the US administration isn't "allowing" anything. I am telling you thats how long it might take (estimating conservatively) for a nation that is being rebuilt such as Iraq to become a stable Democratic nation. US isn't "allowing anything" YOu don't allow something so to speak, LOL. It either happens or it doesn't, and it lands squarely on the citizens of that country to fight and to preserve it.

"but you cite 10 years as being way to long to 'prove' compliance with UN resolutions - an organization you feel the US shouldn't have to prove anything to"

When you lose a war like Germany, Iraq, you are for good or bad, bound to obey the victor's "demands". Germany was bound by Treaty of Versailles after WWI. It disobeyed and broke the treaty with Hitler's rise to power.

Iraq did have terms of surrender to UN and US after and they disobeyed them. After 9/11 the administration wasn't going to take that chance.

As far as the UN involement and that whole fiasco, listen and understand something, UN is not a governing body to US's interests and security. UN is not a governing body to any nation's interests and security. It is an intermediary (sp) organization. It is not the world's government, nor is it the world's peacekeeper. It has its own self interests as well as its own agenda depending on whose controlling it or which number of nations have a majority. No US is not going to be accountable nor do we have anything to prove.

by cactus pete

So, preemptive strikes should be OK? So, what happens when you were wrong to have invaded? Just say, "Hey, you should have done what I told you?" Countries cannot dictate to other countries. You need to fully work the diplomacy angle, at least.

Just as in capital punishment, where you can't bring the dead back to life if the lead witness admits to having lied to get the guy convicted, you can't go to war with another sovereign nation preemptively without pretty damn solid proof.

Iraq was a weakened country. In order to hold off their enemy neighbors, they needed to prop up their capabilities. So they kept the world guessing about their weapons stockpiles. This is a plausible reason for their actions. Did this factor into the decision made by the current administration to preemptively strike? I have found no evidence of this. Bush, in a remarkable and rare display of intellect, said something along the lines of "This is the best you've got?" to the CIA director when he showed what evidence they had that Iraq carried WMD. Unfortunately, this also displays Bush's strong desire to go to war anyway - even with such flimsy proof to back him up.

Lack of proof is lack of proof. In our own judicial system we are innocent until proven guilty. How can we, as a nation, then condemn another nation when there is circumstantial evidence at most? Most of the proof was heresay, and that from political enemies.

Did someone [I'll not attempt to point fingers] lie when they said we know how much and exactly where the WMD were? If we knew where they were, why did we not share this information with the inspectors?

Oh, don't forget that the only WMD used by Iraq were sold to them from the US.

It's the meddling of the US that created all of this in the first place. Now we're meddling and sending in troops. I can't see things getting better.

by oz_media

You just have to put your hands in the air ad shake your head.

I see and agree withyour comments completely. Saddam was a condemned (sp?) man LONG before the whole WMD issue was raised. He had something Bush wanted and he wouldn't let him have it, resources. This was the cause behind all the OFF issues, the US sanctions against Iraq, the US breaking it's OWN sanctions etc. just a mess that turned into a bigger mess before it could be swept neatly under the carpet.

As for Kerry, I won't hazzard a guess whether he will be beter or worse for the United states, taxes, jobs etc., that's internal politics and does not concern me in any way, thank God.

As long as your choice doesn't bring further enemies to North America I don't give a damn who you elect. GWB was/is the worst mistake America has ever made, PLEASE for the sake of the free world, don't repeat this mistake again.

by dbertsche

Sometimes you do have to put your hands in the air and shake your head when you people just don't get it!

We should have finished the job the first time and we wouldn't be catching all the damn flak now. That was Bush Sr's mistake.

Gee you won't venture a guess if Kerry will be better or worse but yet you trash Bush. So typical of Bush-haters. What do you think he will do differently now that the US is in Iraq and it's likely if he's elected he'll have to deal with a congress where his party will be in the minority? Guess you'll be trashing him come next march when the US is still in Iraq, right?

GWB may not be the best president we ever had but by no means is he the worst. Jimmy Carter was by far one of the worst we ever elected, I lived through his double digit inflation and his namby-pamby handling of the Iran hostage crisis, Bush doesn't come anywhere near being as bad as he was.

Contary to your conclusion, it would be a colossal mistake for the US not to reelect Bush. Kerry offers no solutions and flip-flops on every position, additionally he will definitely lighten my wallet because he will raise taxes, it's a forgone conclusion.

As far as bring further enemies to North America, you have to be kidding, the just released 9/11 report covers 8 years of Clinton and 8 months of Bush. North America's enemies have been growing in size long before Bush ever took office.

Bush isn't perfect but he's a damn sight better than Kerry will ever hope to be!

by aldanatech

Okay. So now the reason to go to war was because Iraq didn't provide enough evidence that that it had to weapons of mass destruction. Well the US didn't provide solid evidence to attack Iraq either. Well, the US now has the evidence it demanded from Iraq, and that is that no WMDs have been found so far. Can the world ever trust us again?

by oz_media

That's an interesting point and I know that right now nobody trusts Bush as far as they could kick his sorry arse. He is seen as the enemy even in Canada, God only knows what they think of him in Iraq.

What wil it take to win back the world's trust? Well first of all Amrican citizens realizing what a disaster Bush's term has been and not reelectig him is a good start. If he gets another term, your citizens are gonna be seen as
absolute morons who can't face the truth and realize Bush will be the end of America. You will be seen as confomists fools who will beliee anythig you are told and have no ability to see outside your own backyard, it won't be good at all.

So how do you win back the trust of others? Perhas four years of solving your own problems and not trying to drag the rest of the world into your fear issues. In short, America needs to see a shrink. Once you have proven once again that you can conduct youselves in a professional manner and can actually live your own lives, you MAY begin to earn some trust again.

As it stands, Canada and other countries are looking to others for the partnerships they used to get from the USA, we have no interest in having any affairs with the USA now ad people here don't even want to visit the USA anymore, which is a great deal of your Northern economy and retail support.

People ae working hard to eliminate the USA from the picture as they dont want to be associated with your politics any longer, it is placing others in harms way.

These are just my personal feelings from what I have headr and felt locally, you guys think I am a bush basher or anti-American, I am NOTHING in comparisson to people I talk with who literally despise ANYTHING American. This is from your neighbours and allies, not the middle east, which should cause some concern for America, you need others to support your own country. We can get our resources elsewhere, but where will you go for yours? You need friends for that and friends are something the USA could REALLY use these days.

I don't like to say it because I actually like Americans ad America, just not the dork in the White House that has hung onto coat tails long enough to get elected.

Personally I feel sorry for you all because of what Bush has done to you once good name.

I would DREAD being American in such times and feel for those who never supported GWB to begin with and yet find themselves stucj in the same hole the rest of America is.

Only YOU guys can change things, not GWB not Kery, YOU guys have to find a better resolution han the last which has caused more damage to America than terrorists ever had or could.

Bush is YOUR worst enemy, he has defaced your good name all over the globe and dragged America's citizens with him.

by aldanatech

I find that Kerry's proposals make better sense than Bush's. What do you think would happen if Kerry wins?

by oz_media

Give your head a shake.

I couldn't care less how much of YOUR money Kery takes, I couldn't give a damn about BUSH either except he has MADE your business MY business.

If he was simply screwing around with your economy, your taxes, your employment etc. Then it is completely up to you guys who you elect and I would have no opinion either way.

THE REASON I dislike Bush btu have no comments on kerry is no even remotely close to your analogy. GWB has MADE your business and HIS agenda MY business by performig his antics on the global stage. If he kept Americas business IN America then nobody would give a crap WHO you relected.

As for enemies, BUSH has created MORE resentment and hatred of anything American than ever before, he has stoked the coals ad raked you across them, the funny part is SOME people STILL support him, while many of his former supporters now see him for the clown he is and want change.

For all I care you could elect OJ Simpson or Michael Jackson for president, as long as they don't brig MY country into harms way with thier absurd Bs that fuels thier personal agendas on a global scale, I dont care.

GWB has dragged America through the mud, why is it that every citizen in EVERY country other than America can see this? Are you still under the false premise that everyone's jealous of America? If so for what? The need to live in fear? The need to be hated by the world? The need to piss off Allied countries?

GWB has done NOTHING to help the world except make a mess in Iran and an even bigger mess in Iraq.

Gee thanks for saving my life that was never at risk of attack from these people. Well done, thanks for saving your own country from a non-existent threat. At least you can claim THAT victory. You weren't threatened so you effectively stopped a threat, well done.

Next time, leave the world out of your ridiculous attempts to save America from invisible, false enemies and fabricated threats.

You want to go and kill all your sons ad daughter that's fine. If you feel it is needed because you were scared into believing so, that's fine. if you want to go and believe the smoke screen to take your focus away from Americas real threats, that's fine.

Just don't drag the whole damn world along with you and then bitch that nobody else buys your presidents BS.

by oz_media

I think from number 5 onward the US fits in with all the others that have supported, supplied, trained, funded the Taliban and Iraq terrorist groups. ut we all know that, I am just surprised that you conveniently avoided mentioning that the US has ignored the use of chemical weapons when in thier best interests, when they aren't they must be a terrorist to be stopped.

It's all just confortable convenience, Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Israel etc.

Just don't foget how they got the power, the training, the weapons.

by runner.17

...had obligations to keep once they were elected to office. The Iraq invasion was a "given" for this administration. We learned in 1991 that the vaunted Iraqi army were pissants. We learned also that so was their leadership. Hussein and his sons were greedy "punks". Such an easy target to knock over, to covet the planet's second largest oil reserve.
The "super-patriots" had hoped to capitilize on our grief and anger over the Sept. 11 attacks. But instead of killing our killers, they have carried on business as usual.
This is why our country is divided.

by garion11

GASP, whoa, I am actually agreeing with you. Isn't that amazing OZ? Yeah US did fund the mujahadeen and the Afghan rebels. Thats because there was a bigger enemy to fight at that time, the Soviet Union. Where we did make a mistake was we let em go. We didn't "untrain" them if that makes any sense. But oh well, now they bit the hand that fed them, and they will be taken out.

Yes its a self interest convenient comfort. You took the words right out of my mouth. Every nation, city state, organization, down to the last individual acts in self-interest, but isn't it interesting that America's invasion and rebuilding of Iraq while it is in the self interest of America (which is a flourishing Democracy in the middle east), it actually benefits the world at hand and Iraqis and I sincerely hope all of middle east. Your shortsightedness and self centered view may not see that, but a democracy in Iraq is 1000x better than a dictatorship under Saddam. But yet you criticize the US for???

by oz_media

Of course a country that is repressed will benefit from democracy, if they want a democracy, but either way someone else can run the show, who knows may be better may be worse.

You post was quite eloquent until you reduced it with your character assumptions again, I think you're getting there but not quite yet.

You cannot take the long term efects of overthrowing the Iraqi dictatorship and see them as justification in any way, that's a multi-billion worldwide effort, not Americas intention, just a positive benefit when the dust settles (literally).

No you aren't going to claim any kudos from anyone by saying that Iraqi's are better off. You invaded a country under false premise, this shouldbe considered a war crime at best.

by garion11

Based on these reasons I gave above US was entirely justified in going into Iraq. But you can easily say thats my opinion because the key word is JUSTIFIED. Justified to whom exactly? The world at large? UN? There is no objective justice in international relations. The victor always has written history. If Hitler won, what kind of an earth and world would it be?? He is wrong because?? the world won?? or was he wrong because..?? we measured his actions against...?? what system of objectivity? There was none. So simply the victor wrote history (prevalent throughout humanity's past and present). Its all relative.

So hence we come to my point...which I will repeat. US after 9/11 was entirely justified in going into Iraq based on these factual reasons I presented above. What is the justification for 9/11 from these terrorists? What reasons did they present to attack America and kill innocent civilians?? What reasons did Saddam present after his unprovocked attack against Kuwait and thus leading to Gulf War I with UN approval (last time I checked I didn't elect the UN Genereal Secretary and neither did you)??. They don't need to present anything, but America does?? They don't play by any rules, but America has to??

If you are angry at the US for going into Iraq, what kind of anger do you have for these terrorists that killed and continue to kill innocent civilians?? Thats why people call you an anti-american on this board. Its your anger against American actions, but at the same time your failure to see the terrorists and their glaring faults. Now based on your so called reasons that you stated why America shouldn't have gone to war, do you hold these 9/11 terrorists and Saddam for that matter by the same moral standards? You rant and scream at the American civilian/military casualties and Iraqis' civilian casualties, the difference is, America doesn't target civilians on purpose (at least in this war), the terrorists do. Iraq may or may not have anything to do with 9/11, but again based on the reasons above its better not to have Saddam around, for America's sake.

Which in turns leads to, self interest of a nation is the only objective justice in the world. UN or any international body of "government" will not work because of self interest of nations and various governments. The only way UN or any other international body of "government" will work is if every country is the same government (and even then you might have issues, but at least there is a common denominator).

Isn't it intersting that America with its invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq, toppeled two repressive regimes and implanted Democracy in those two countries, based on the self interests of US?? Don't you find it *GASP* pleasantly surprising, that a self interest of a Democratic nation actually is benefitting Iraqis and Afghanistans? You can argue and debate whether their Democracies last, and I hope that they do, but don't tell me we were unjustified after 9/11.

by hal 9000

And that is that you really are better that those you you dispose.

Unfortunately from reports that keep originating from these places it is the US sinking to the level rather than the US making the level higher.

When someone else does something it is considered as bad but when the US does the same thing it is thought of as OK. Exactly what am I missing here?

Col

by oz_media

May all seem well and true to yourself as an American, there are a few flaws in your analogies though.

Firstly you said; "or was he wrong because..?? we measured his actions against...?? what system of objectivity? There was none." (referring to Hitler in WWII.

Well to begin with, Hitler invaded Western Europe and had hundreds of thousands of Nazis taking over the less powerful Western Allies. His goal was defeated when he was inable to bomb Britain into submission and invade rfom France to England. Canadian and british soldiers held a strong front against the Luftwaffe lond enough to diminish Hitlers resources and fade his visions of taking England.

You cannot equate Saddams, known terrorism against his neighbouring countries to Hitler in any way, they are not even remotely close other than the act that America went to war, other than that NO connection or similarity whatsoever. Saddam hasn't taken over the Middle East.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Next, you say that I am seen as un-American because I don't force the same resposibility upon Iraq as I do America. Well Iraq was a dictatorshp run by a tyrant that housed terrorist regimes. Are you now justifying America actions because you should be seen the same way? What's okay for them is okay for you? if Tommy broke the law, you can too?
I have always said Saddam is an evil and repressive dictator that needed to be removed, I do not give Iraq any leeway in that respect and never have, in fact I agree he needed to be removed and you know it. Don't make me keep backtracking through the same thing all the time as you reach and stretch for ways to make it SEEM okay, you prematurely invaded another country based on false premise, bottom line, this SHOULD be a crime. We condemn Saddam for his actions that go against the better interests of the free world, when GWB does it, we are all supposed to accept it. (As if modern and powerful country wouldn't make a horrendous mistake and be held accountable for thier actions?)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

As for Iran, perhaps you should do a little digging and you will see that you haven't 'toppled' anyone in Iran. AlQaeda is as bigand string as ever and has even been said to be planning the next attck on the USA. What regime have you removed that was responsible for 9/11? It certainly isn't the Taliban, in fact the Taliban and other terrorist regimes all now share a single focus against the USA with a vengeance never seen before. Instead f having small groups of poorly equipped terrorists all disliking America, they have now united with the same goals. Iran was a major flop and everyone in the world knows it, including the terrorists you attempted to disband or 'topple'.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Iran was a mess, Iraq is a mess, so far I'd say you are 0 for 2. Okay perhaps .5 for 2 because you at least caught the enemy that stayed inside his country as expected.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

But yes, I supose we could justify your invasion by comparing you to Iraq's terrorism and you'd look pretty good. It's POSSIBLE to justify it that way, if you wish. I don't think mainstream America would see it as a positive thing though.
2 wrongs don't make a right.

by garion11

Hmmm..?? No, US is accountable for anything and everything it does, just like other countries and nations.

Bush went on Arab TV and apologized for the prison scandal. Have the Arabian leaders came on American TV and apologized for 9/11?

by martin

Why did YOU go to war.

Well, Iraqi didnt have anything with you. Why should the US have weapons of mass destructions when noone else is gonna have it? is the US a superior country to anyone else? Well, to bad, USA is the youngest country of us all, and we can see why they (you) act. Myself is Swedish. I have always liked the United States. But i have been thinking about it for a while. You hunt the native people of your or THIERS country. The indians if you didnt know. The USA put thier nose in anything they can. I think it was for business that USA striked the Iraqi.

by hal 9000

Exactly which Arab Leader was responsible for 9-11 or for that matter Bali?

From my memory I seem to remember almost every one from the Arab Leaders condemning these action. But as they where not responsible for it just why should they appear on US TV {Even if they could get on} and apologies for the actions of others?

When they condemned the actions wasn't that enough? Perhaps in the US these where never shown as a way to entice the general population into believing that all Arab countries where attempting to attack the US but over here we at least get a more balanced news report or at least what is in the owners best interests.

Col