Those of us supporting the war are NOT warmongers. We don’t BEG for a war at the drop of a hat. But we also realize that in an imperfect world, sometimes war is inevitable or is the LAST AVAILABLE OPTION. This is one of those cases. Unfortunately, some of you are so warped by media BS, that you’re no longer capable of making this distinction because it requires some critical thinking on your part.
I assume you mean the Iraq War. What do you mean by “last available option”. Are you saying that our invasion of Iraq was our “last available option”?
[quote]freemark wrote:
I assume you mean the Iraq War. What do you mean by “last available option”. Are you saying that our invasion of Iraq was our “last available option”?[/quote]
Yes. I’ll say yes for him. It was this OR be terrorized and played through France, Germany, Iraq and the UN indefinately.
[quote]freemark wrote:
I assume you mean the Iraq War. What do you mean by “last available option”. Are you saying that our invasion of Iraq was our “last available option”?[/quote]
Are you frgetting about the 17 UN resolutions that went totally ignored? What other option did we have if we were to be taken seriously? Join the OFF bribery/payoff/starve the Iraqi citizens game that the French, the Germans, Russia, and the brass at the UN had already whored out for?
What we did was right. And it shouldnb’t be the last stop in the WOT, either.
I read people in this forum saying it the war is “right”. And we had no choice. But what did we gain from it? There seems to be a lot of negatives and very few positives from the war in Iraq.
[quote]freemark wrote:
I read people in this forum saying it the war is “right”. And we had no choice. But what did we gain from it? There seems to be a lot of negatives and very few positives from the war in Iraq.[/quote]
What are the negatives? Please list them. Maybe giving 11 miilion people the right to determine their own destiny is a bad thing? Maybe deposing the mosy vicious dictator in years was a bad thing? Maybe rebuilding an infrastructure for a nation that was raped and pillages for the gain of a dictator was a bad thing as well.
I stand corrected - you are absolutely right.
I asked what ?we? gained from it. Not what the Iraqi?s gained from it. But let?s look at what you have said.
First: the Iraqi?s are not able to determine their own destinies yet, we might be able to establish a working democracy, but it has not happened yet and it is not looking good.
Second: we have deposed a bad man, but that has NOT been a help to most Iraqi?s yet and until the dust settles we do not know if it will be.
Third: the infrastructure is much worse now than before the war. There is less electricity; less drinkable water; much higher unemployment; and a much higher chance of being killed than before the war.
I actually hope we can make things better there. My problem isn?t so much with the war as with the complete incompetence with which it has been handled. If Bush and Cheney would have been more worried about freeing Iraq and making it a better place and less worried about how to exploit there oil fields and make billions on the war effort through Halliburton and the Carlyle Group. And if Bush and Co. had listened to the military experts initially we would not be in the extreme mess we are in now.
Again my problem is not nearly as much with the war as the fact that so many of our guys are dying and so much of our tax money is being spent because our civilian leaders cared much less about winning then they did about making a profit and gaining power.
You’ve given only your opinion. Not a single fact. I know that Iraqi citizens voted. I saw them doing it. Yet you say they didn’t?
Use proof. Is that a hard thing to grasp? Your opinion may mean something to you, but it means dick to me - especially when you are speaking it to be fact.
The question about the WOT in Iraq was answered for me. But I’ll say it myself - YES. How many more times did the UN have to be lied to by Saddam or how many more Kurds did he have to senselessly slaughter before you felt that all channels of diplomacy were exhausted? Damn right bringing the WOT to Iraq was the only available option. War isn’t pretty. In fact, it SUCKS. But sometimes it’s NECESSARY.
Just like if you want to build a better body, you’ll have to do things that in the short term sucks (make sacrafices in your lifestyle, go through the pain of lifting weights and stretching, etc). Sometimes in life, you just have to bite the proverbial bullet.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
You’ve given only your opinion. Not a single fact. I know that Iraqi citizens voted. I saw them doing it. Yet you say they didn’t?
Use proof. Is that a hard thing to grasp? Your opinion may mean something to you, but it means dick to me - especially when you are speaking it to be fact.[/quote]
Most of what I stated was fact. I cannot help it if you do not want it to be fact. Also I never said they didnt vote. What I said was that it is not a democracy. Even Bush does not call it a democracy he says that they are [quote]working towards a democracy.[/quote]
Most Iraqis have access to less potable water since the invasion—fact
Most Iraqis have fewer hours of electricity----------------fact
Iraqi unemployment id much higher-----------------fact
Halliburton makes record profits-------------------fact
Carlysle Group makes record profits-----------------fact
Some facts I didn?t include:
Exxon/Mobile, Texaco, BP, Chevron making record profits---------fact
Gasoline shortages in Iraq much worse than under Sadaam----------fact
Gasoline prices much higher in Iraq (and here) than under Sadaam–fact
Mortality rate for Iraqi children significantly higher then
Under Sadaam----------------------fact
The FACT is that GWB is doing a poor job prosecuting this war from a military standpoint. If you want to disagree that is fine but try giving some proof rather than just spouting your opinions. Even if you love W its almost impossible to say factually that his decisions regarding the war in Iraq have been good ones. If you think he is doing a good job give facts to prove it.
Who says these are facts? You? You see, if you have facts - real facts - you have to cite a source. That is the way we play down here. Documented facts support arguments. Everything else is opinion.
No one is faulting you for having an opinion. Everyone has at least one. But this isn’t the school play ground.
I’m trying to help you out here. Cite the source of your ‘facts’. Then, assuming that you have used a half-way credible source, you will have a point from which to argue. But as for now - you have nothing but opinion.
The huge mistake you are making, and many Americans, is buying into the idea that the invasion of Iraq was part of the War on Terror. The war on terror involved 1) the invasion of Afghanistan to get Al Qaeda and their benefactors 2) small scale covert operations and intelligence activities by the US and its allies around the globe.
The invasion of Iraq was launched to remove Saddam, and for strategic/economic reasons in the Middle East. This was on Bush’s agenda well before 9/11. He needed a pretext, and when Afghanistan was effectively over so quickly, but without achieving the No1 goal of capturing or killing OBL, the timing was right to launch the Iraq invasion. He also needed a new conflict so he could ride a wave of redneck jingoistic popularity through to the next election. At the time of the Iraq invasion, there was no terrorist presence in Iraq.
Now of course, many insurgents have gathered there, so it could be loosely called part of the War on Terror now, but initially it was no such thing. World opinion was generally supportive of the US invasion of Afghanistan. It was even supported by some Middle Eastern countries. But the invasion of Iraq has added fuel to the terrorist fire, making the job to win the War on Terror a much harder one.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Who says these are facts? You? You see, if you have facts - real facts - you have to cite a source. That is the way we play down here. Documented facts support arguments. Everything else is opinion.
No one is faulting you for having an opinion. Everyone has at least one. But this isn’t the school play ground.
I’m trying to help you out here. Cite the source of your ‘facts’. Then, assuming that you have used a half-way credible source, you will have a point from which to argue. But as for now - you have nothing but opinion. [/quote]
Here are some sources I took a few minutes to track down. And I will make a few minor corrections to what I said.
I should have said huge profits for Halliburton not record. I should have said estimated profits for Carlyle group since it is a private company. And I should have said gas shortages not gas price increase.
Halliburton
electricity
water
http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/081104E.shtml
oil company
http://www.consumersunion.org/pub/core_other_issues/001541.html
infant mortality
http://www.unicef.org/newsline/99pr29.htm
Carlyle Group
http://baltimorechronicle.com/media3_oct01.shtml
unemployment
gas shortage
[quote]deanosumo wrote:
The huge mistake you are making, and many Americans, is buying into the idea that the invasion of Iraq was part of the War on Terror.[/quote]
You have zero proof that it was anything other than that.
Are you privy to top level security information?
What sort of “economic reasons?” Are we going to take their oil? If so how come we have not done so as yet? Why are gas prices still sky high? This seems to blow a hole in your theory.
More baseless confecture on your part? Or, were you privy to high level meetings with in Bush’s inner circle? No…you were not! So…why throw garbage?
Silly liberal…Iraq almost cost him his second term LOL. The smart political move would have been to bask in the Afghan victory and cost to an easy second term. (shaking head)
You seem to contradict yourself. If the Afghan war was popular, but Iraq was not how was that going to help him gain a second term?
I’m sorry, not trying to he hyper critical but your theories are seriously wrong!
[quote]deanosumo wrote:
…
The invasion of Iraq was launched to remove Saddam, and for strategic/economic reasons in the Middle East… [/quote]
Exactly. Remaking Iraq into a thriving secular state (if it ever happens) is a dagger in the heart of Islamic fundementalists.
Saudi Arabia would have been a better place to start, but there was no compelling argument that would have legitimized an invasion of Saudi Arabia.
The invasion of Iraq is a campaign in the “War on Terror”. It is inseperable. Bush has not done a good job explaining this and the MSM has falsely tried to keep these seperate.
I hear references to the UN resolutions that Iraq was in violation of. Interestingly enough, this logic of “enforcing UN resolutions” doesn’t seem to hold with regard to other Middle Eastern nations. Is the UN resolutions “angle” just a useful rationalization for national interest? I think so. This is not to say that NO reason exists for the invasion and occupation of Iraq, but the logic of “enforcing the UN’s rules” seems a bit silly.
I’m sure we can invent a wacky conspiracy where the entire rest of the world is just out to get us, but the facts remain that Israel is and has been in violation of more than a few UN resolutions. However, we have not launched a “shock and awe” campaign agains Areil Sharon (who is personally responsible for the Sept. 15th, 1982 massacre of 800+ civilians at the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps). Here’s a few highlights of Israel’s non-compliance with international law:
Resolution 101
Adopted by the Security Council on 24 November 1953
Adopted at 642nd meeting (9-0-2) (two abstentions were Lebanon, USSR.)
The council found that the retaliatory action at Qibya (Jordan), taken by the armed force of Israel on 14-15 October 1953 and all such actions, constituted a violation of the ceasefire provisions of Security Council resolution 54 (1948) and were inconsistent with the parties? obligations under the general armistice agreement between Israel and Jordan and the Charter of the UN.
It recalled to the governments of Israel and Jordan their obligations under Security Council resolutions and the general armistice agreement to prevent all acts of violence on either side of the demarcation line
It reaffirmed that it was essential, in order to achieve progress by peaceful means towards a lasting settlement of the issues outstanding between them, that the parties abide by their obligations under the general armistice agreement and the resolutions of the Security Council; and requested the Secretary-General to consider, with the chief of staff, the best ways of strengthening UNTSO.
Resolution 228
Adopted by the Security Council on 25 November 1966
Adopted at 1328th meeting (14-01) (one abstention was New Zealand)
It condemned the loss of life and heavy damage to property resulting from the serious Israeli military action that took place in Southern Hebron (Al-Samu?) on 13 November 1966.
It censured Israel for this large-scale military action in violation of the UN charter and of the general armistice agreement between Israel and Jordan; and emphasized that the council would have to consider further and more effective steps as envisioned by the charter to ensure that such violent acts would not be repeated.
Resolution 237
Adopted by the Security Council on 14 June 1967
Adopted at 1361st meeting - unanimously
It called upon the government of Israel to ensure the safety, welfare and security of the inhabitants of the areas where military operations had taken place and to facilitate the return of those inhabitants who had fled the areas since the outbreak of the hostilities.
It recommended to the governments concerned the scrupulous respect of the humanitarian principles governing the treatment of prisoners of war and the protection of civilian persons at time of war, contained in the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949; and requested the Secretary-General to follow the effective implementation of this resolution and to report to the council.
Resolution 242
Adopted by the Security Council on 22 November 1967
Adopted 1382nd meeting - unanimously
It affirmed that the fulfilment of charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of both the following principles: withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict, termination of all claims or states of hostility, and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every state in the area, and their right to live in peace within secure and recognised boundaries free from threats or acts of force.
It also affirmed the necessity for guaranteeing freedom of navigation through international waterways in the area; for achieving a just settlement for the refugee problem, and for guaranteeing the territorial inviolability and political independence of every state in the area through measures including the establishment of demilitarised zones.
It requested the Secretary-General to designate a special representative to promote agreement and assist efforts to achieve a peaceful and accepted settlement in accordance with the provisions and principles in this resolution.
Resolution 252
Adopted by the Security Council on 21 May 1968
Adopted at 1426th meeting (13-0-2) (two abstentions were Canada, US.)
It condemned the failure of Israel to comply with General Assembly resolutions 2253 (ES-V) and 2254 (ES-V) of 4 and 14 July 1967; and considered that all legislative and administrative measures taken by Israel, including the expropriation of land and properties, which tend to change the legal status of Jerusalem, were invalid and could not change its status.
It urgently called upon Israel to repeal from all such measures taken and to desist from further actions that intended to change the status of Jerusalem.
Resolution 267
Adopted by the Security Council on 3 July 1969
Adopted at 1485th meeting - unanimously
It reaffirmed the established principle that the acquisition of territory by military conquest is inadmissible; and deplored the failure of Israel to show any regard for the resolutions of the General Assembly and the Security Council.
It censured in the strongest terms all measures taken to change the status of the city of Jerusalem; and urgently called once more on Israel to refrain from all actions likely to have such an effect in the future.
It determined that in the event of a negative response or no response from Israel, the Security Council should reconvene without delay to consider what further action should be taken on the matter.
Resolution 271
Adopted by the Security Council on 15 September 1969
Adopted at 1512th meeting (11-0-4) (four abstentions were Colombia, Finland, Paraguay, US.)
It grieved at the extensive damage caused by the fire-starting in the Al Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem on 21 August 1969 under the military occupation of Israel; and recognised that any act of destruction or profanation of holy places, religious buildings and sites in Jerusalem or any encouragement of such act may seriously endanger international peace and security.
It called upon Israel to scrupulously observe the provisions of the Geneva Conventions and international law governing military occupation and to refrain from causing any hindrance to the discharge of the established functions of the Supreme Muslim Council of Jerusalem.
It condemned the failure of Israel to comply with resolutions stated before.
Resolution 338
Adopted by the Security Council on 22 October 1973
Adopted at 1747th meeting - unanimously
It called for an immediate ceasefire and termination of all military activities.
It called upon the parties concerned to start, immediately after the ceasefire, the implementation of Security Council resolution 242 (1967) in all of its parts.
It decided that negotiations should start, immediately and concurrently with the ceasefire, between the parties concerned under appropriate patronage aimed at establishing a just and durable peace in the Middle East.
Resolution 446
Adopted by the Security Council on 22 March 1979
Adopted at 2134th meeting (12-0-3) (three abstentions were Norway, UK, US)
It determined that the policy and practices of Israel in establishing settlements in the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967 had no legal validity and constituted a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East.
It called once more upon Israel, as the occupying force, to abide scrupulously by the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention, to rescind its previous measures and to desist from taking any action which would result in changing the legal status and geographical nature of the Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem.
The council also called on Israel not to transfer parts of its own civilian population into the occupied Arab territories.
It established a commission consisting of three members of the Security Council to examine the situation relating to settlements and requests the Commission to submit a report to the Security Council.
Resolution 465
Adopted by the Security Council on 1 March 1980
Adopted at 2203rd meeting - unanimously
It accepted the conclusions and recommendations contained in the report of the Commission of the Security Council (on settlements); and determined that all measures taken by Israel to change the physical character, composition, institutional structure of the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem, had no legal validity.
The council also determined that Israel’s policy and practices of settling parts of its population and new immigrants in those territories constituted a flagrant violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention, and also constituted a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East.
It strongly deplored the continuation and persistence of Israel in pursuing those policies and practices; and called upon Israel to rescind those measures, to dismantle the existing settlements and in particular to cease, on an urgent basis, the establishment, construction and planning of settlements in the Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem.
It called upon all states not to provide Israel with any assistance to be used specifically in connection with settlements in the occupied territories; and requested from the commission to continue examining the situation relating to settlements, and to investigate the reported serious depletion of natural resources, particularly water, with the intention of ensuring the protection of those important natural resources.
Resolution 471
Adopted by the Security Council on 5 June 1980
Adopted at 2226th meeting (14-0-1) (one abstention was U.S.)
It expressed deep concern that the Jewish settlers in the occupied Arab territories were allowed to carry arms, thus enabling them to perpetrate crimes against the civilian population.
It called for the immediate apprehension and prosecution of the perpetrators of these crimes and condemned the assassination attempts on the lives of the mayors of Nablus, Ram Allah and Al-Bireh.
It expressed deep concern that Israel, as an occupying force, had failed to provide adequate protection to the civilian population in the occupied territories in conformity with the provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention.
It called once again upon all states not to provide Israel with any assistance to be used specifically in connection with settlements in the occupied territories; and reaffirmed the overriding necessity to end the prolonged occupation of Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem.
Resolution 605
Adopted by the Security Council on 5 June 1980
Adopted at 2777th meeting (14-0-1) (one abstention was US.)
Taking into account the need to consider measures for the impartial protection of the Palestinian civilian population under Israeli occupation, the resolution strongly deplored those policies and practices of Israel, which violated the human rights of the Palestinian people in the occupied territories, particularly the opening of fire by the Israeli army resulting in the killing and wounding of defenseless Palestinian civilians.
It called, once again, upon Israel, the occupying force, to abide immediately and thoroughly by the Fourth Geneva Convention.
Resolution 636
Adopted by the Security Council on 6 July 1989
Adopted at 2870th meeting (14-0-1) (one abstention was US.)
It condemned the continuing deportation of Palestinian civilians by Israel, and called upon Israel, the occupying force, to ensure the safe and immediate return of deported Palestinians to the occupied Palestinian territories.
It called upon Israel to desist from deporting any other Palestinian civilians; and reaffirmed that the Fourth Geneva Convention was applicable to the Palestinian territories, occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem, and to the other occupied Arab territories.
Resolution 904
Adopted by the Security Council on 18 March 1994
Adopted at 3351st meeting ? unanimously (the draft was voted on in parts, with the US abstaining. No vote was taken on the text as a whole.)
It reaffirmed its relevant resolutions, which stated the applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 12 August 1949 to the territories occupied by Israel in June 1967. Thereby, the resolution strongly condemned the massacre in Hebron committed against Palestinian worshippers in Al-Ibrahimi Mosque, on 25 February 1994, during the holy month of Ramadan, and its aftermath, which took the lives of more than 50 Palestinian civilians and injured several hundred others.
It called upon Israel, the occupying force, to implement measures, including inter alia (confiscation of arms), with the aim of preventing illegal acts of violence by Israeli settlers; and called for measures to be taken to guarantee the safety and protection of the Palestinian civilians throughout the occupied territory, including, inter alia, a temporary international or foreign presence, which was provided for in the declaration of principles within the context of the ongoing peace process.
It requested the co-sponsors of the peace process, the US and the Russian Federation, to continue their efforts to revitalise the peace process, and to undertake the necessary support for the implementation of the above-mentioned measures.
It called for the implementation of the Declaration of Principles, signed by the government of Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organisation on 13 September 1993 in Washington DC without delay.
Resolution 1322
Adopted by the Security Council on 7 October 2000
Adopted at 4205th meeting (14-0-1) (one abstention was US.)
It condemned the provocation carried out at Al-Haram Al-Sharif in Jerusalem on 28 September 2000, and the subsequent violence there and at other holy places, as well as in other areas throughout the territories occupied by Israel since 1968, resulting in more than 80 Palestinian deaths and many other casualties.
It condemned acts of violence, especially the excessive use of force against Palestinians, resulting in injury and loss of human life. And called upon Israel, the occupying force, to abide thoroughly by its legal obligations and its responsibilities under the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the protection of civilian persons in time of war.
It called for the immediate cessation of violence, and for all necessary steps to be taken to ensure that violence ends, that new provocative actions are avoided, and that the situation returns to normality in a way that promotes the prospects for the Middle East peace process.
It stressed the importance of establishing a mechanism for a speedy and objective inquiry into the tragic events of September 2000, with the aim of preventing their repetition.
Resolution 1397
Adopted by the Security Council on 12 March 2002
Adopted by a vote of 14-0-1 (Syria abstention)
Recalling all its previous resolutions, in particular resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973), the resolution affirmed a vision of a region where two states, Israel and Palestine, live side by side within secure and recognised borders.
It expressed its grave concern at the continuation of the tragic and violent events that have taken place since September 2000, especially the recent attacks and the increased number of casualties.
It stressed the need for all concerned to ensure the safety of civilians, and to respect the universally accepted norms of international humanitarian law.
It demanded immediate cessation of all acts of violence, including all acts of terror, provocation, incitement and destruction.
It called upon the Israeli and Palestinian sides and their leaders to cooperate in the implementation of the Tenet work plan and Mitchell report recommendations with the aim of resuming negotiations on a political settlement.
Resolution 1402
Adopted by the Security Council on 30 March 2002
Adopted by a vote of 14-0-0 (Syria did not take part in the vote)
It expressed grave concern at the further deterioration of the situation, including the recent suicide bombings in Israel and the military attack against the headquarters of the president of the Palestinian Authority.
It called upon both parties to move immediately to a meaningful ceasefire, and requested the withdrawal of Israeli troops from Palestinian cities, including Ram Allah. and called upon the parties to cooperate fully with Special Envoy Zinni, and others, to implement the Tenet security work plan as a first step towards implementation of the Mitchell committee recommendations, with the aim of resuming negotiations on a political settlement.
It restated the demand in resolution 1397 for immediate cessation of all acts of violence, including all acts of terror, provocation, incitement and destruction.
Resolution 1405
Adopted by the Security Council on 19 April 2002 (adopted unanimously)
It concerned by the dreadful humanitarian situation of the Palestinian civilian population, especially, reports from the Jenin refugee camp of an unknown number of deaths and destruction.
It called for the lifting of restrictions imposed, particularly in Jenin, on the operations of humanitarian organisations, including the International Committee of the Red Cross and the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East.
It stressed the need for all concerned to ensure the safety of civilians, and to respect the universally accepted norms of international law.
It emphasised the urgency of the Palestinian civilian population to access medical and humanitarian organisations.
It welcomed the initiative of the Secretary-General to develop accurate information regarding recent events in the Jenin refugee camp through a fact-finding team and requested him to keep the Security Council informed.
Resolution 1435
Adopted by the Security Council on 24 September 2002
Adopted by a vote of 14-0-1 (US abstained)
It condemned all terrorist attacks against any civilians, including the terrorist bombings in Israel on 18 and 19 September 2002 and in a Palestinian school in Hebron on 17 September 2002.
It expressed serious concern at the reoccupation of the headquarters of the president of the Palestinian Authority in the City of Ram Allah that took place on 19 September 2002 and demanded its immediate end.
It expressed alarm at the reoccupation of Palestinian cities as well as the severe restrictions imposed on the movement of persons and goods, and was gravely concerned at the humanitarian crisis being faced by the Palestinian people.
It reiterated the need for respect in all circumstances of international humanitarian law, including the Fourth Geneva Convention.
It demanded that Israel immediately cease measures in and around Ram Allah, including the destruction of Palestinian civilian and security infrastructure. It also demanded the expeditious withdrawal of the Israeli occupying forces from Palestinian cities towards the return to positions held prior to September 2000.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
The invasion of Iraq is a campaign in the “War on Terror”. It is inseperable. Bush has not done a good job explaining this and the MSM has falsely tried to keep these seperate.
[/quote]
Totally agree.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
deanosumo wrote:
He needed a pretext, and when Afghanistan was effectively over so quickly, but without achieving the No1 goal of capturing or killing OBL, the timing was right to launch the Iraq invasion. He also needed a new conflict so he could ride a wave of redneck jingoistic popularity through to the next election. At the time of the Iraq invasion, there was no terrorist presence in Iraq.
Silly liberal…Iraq almost cost him his second term LOL. The smart political move would have been to bask in the Afghan victory and cost to an easy second term. (shaking head)
World opinion was generally supportive of the US invasion of Afghanistan. It was even supported by some Middle Eastern countries. But the invasion of Iraq has added fuel to the terrorist fire, making the job to win the War on Terror a much harder one.
You seem to contradict yourself. If the Afghan war was popular, but Iraq was not how was that going to help him gain a second term?
I’m sorry, not trying to he hyper critical but your theories are seriously wrong!
[/quote]
The Afghan war was not going to secure Bush re-election. It was too far removed from the election date. Look at what happened to his father, who was immensely popular during the first Gulf War but come election time this was largely forgotten by the populace who dumped him for Bill Clinton. His father surely didn’t bask in the glory and coast to victory. Dubya had to go one further.
Iraq was a gamble in terms of domestic politics. It paid off- just. It polarised the country but Bush just got enough votes. I believe his strategists knew it would be a gamble but backed their chances. They knew the initial air-ground war would be a cakewalk, and probably didn’t count on the level of insurgent resistance afterward, which has certainly hurt his approval rating since.
The point made about the popularity of the Afghanistan conflict vs. the general worldwide condemnation of the Iraq invasion was not related to the election, so it is you who misunderstand. WORLDWIDE opinion does not generally influence US elections. Indeed, usually Americans don’t give a fuck what anybody else in the world thinks. I mentioned the unpopularity of the Iraq War to underline how it has actually hurt the war on terror by
turning many more previously moderate muslims against the US not to mention being a colossal waste of resources and, more importantly, US lives.
Saddam Hussein was not compliant with the UN because he had no weapons to destroy…actually the day before the marines launched their attack he destroyed some empty scuds that when fully loaded couldn’t fly further than 500 miles–give or take. Iraq was no threat and would have remained no threat had we not attacked them. We had him in check with trade embargoes and no fly zones. There was no way in the world he could have waged war on anyone. We were stupid not to listen to the UN when Hans Blix said there were no weapons that they could find. But no, we sent in another inspector and again we were told no weapons. So precluding faulty intelligence on our part what reason did we have? As far as funding terrorists…I don’t think so. You really think he wanted to invite that kind of trouble to his already messed up country?
One more question: Why is it that we have reliable intelligence on every other country around the world that have weapons, want weapons, and or are trying to obtain weapons but we didn’t when it came to Iraq? For crying out loud we flew daily “mission” over this country and knew when their battalion commanders went to take a leak let alone the weapons they had. Faulty intelligence was just another Bush administration cop-out.
Thanks to the Bush administration we now have more terrorists on our hands. Anyone who thinks you can wage a war of ideals with violence is certainly deluded. We can no more win this war with bombs than they can. Every bomb we drop welcomes 100 more recruits to their cause. No propaganda necessary on their side just bombed-out shacks and some dead “civilians” is all it takes. By the way they could not care less about democracy?they see it as a means to bringing capitalism and nothing more.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
The invasion of Iraq was launched to remove Saddam, and for strategic/economic reasons in the Middle East…
[/quote]
We will not win this “war on ideals” by going to war against a single country–infact we will invite more terror. Saddam was not a terrorist–evil dictator yes, terrorist no. Nor did he fund terrorsts. I would like to know where you get this idea. I beleive Secretary Rumsfeld himself had come out and stated in 2004 there was no known connection between Saddam and the 9/11 terrorists. I can tell you this, Saudia Arabia I bet has some naughty skeletons it wouldn’t want us to know about–yet we turn a blind eye because we like to drive big fat SUVs.