As the Iraq war enters its fifth year, its time to reflect on some of the things that we've long since forgotten.
1. Most people have forgotten--or never knew--all the reasons we went to war. -- H.J.RES.114 is the Congressional resolution that authorized the President to use force to overthrow the regime of Saddam Hussein. Most Americans--probably including the 136 Congressional Representatives and 16 Senators who co-sponsored the resolution--have never bothered to read the text and instead parrot nonsense about "why we really went to war." This law, however, provides the complete list of justifications for why we went to war with Iraq. This law establishes the criteria that the American people--through their elected representatives--agreed were sufficient reasons for using force in Iraq. The list includes:
Continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability (false); actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability (true); supporting and harboring terrorist organizations (true); continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population (true); refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq (true); failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait (true); demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people (true); attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush (true); firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces (true); harbored members of al-Qaeda (true); continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations (true).
Critics of the war who deny or downplay these reasons for going to war are either ignorant or dishonest. They are either unaware of the real reasons provided to the American people by their legislature or do know and are intentionally being deceptive.
2. The plan to overthrow Saddam began during the Clinton Administration -- The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338) was a Congressional statement of policy calling for regime change in Iraq which Bill Clinton signed the bill into law on October 31, 1998. The Act authorized the President to provide assistance (including military assistance that didn't require the use of U.S. military force) to anti-Saddam groups working to enact a regime change. This act was also cited in H.J.RES.114.
3. It wasn't just neo-conservatives who made the case for war. -- Kenneth Pollack was the Iran-Iraq military analyst for the CIA, and the director of Persian Gulf Affairs and Near East and South Asian Affairs for the National Security Council under Bill Clinton. Pollack had both the experience and credentials to make liberals take notice so when his book, The Threatening Storm: The Case for Invading Iraq, debuted in 2002 it caused quite a splash among fence-sitters who were unwilling to accept the Republicans case for war. The New York Times claimed that Pollack‘s, 'argument for invading Iraq is surely the most influential book of this season, has provided intellectual cover for every liberal who finds himself inclining toward war but uneasy about Mr. Bush." According to The New Yorker, Pollack’s 'comprehensive and convincing" case for war was presented, 'More effectively than Dick Cheney or Paul Wolfowitz or any other of the hawkish big thinkers in the Administration…"
4. Saddam released over 100,000 hardened criminals from prison before the war. -- At the beginning of the war, 1 out of every 200 Iraqis on the streets was a convicted rapist, robber, or murderer, or other felon. Unleashing such a horde of convicts would naturally have a devastating and detrimental impact on any society. Imagine what life would be like if we emptied every prison in Texas, a state that has approximately the same land area and population as Iraq. How safe do you think it would be to walk the streets of Austin or Dallas? Imagine also that the police forces had been disbanded and was having to be reconstituted. How long do you think it would take before the state was able to reach a level of 'stability?"
Even if such an event were to occur here in the U.S. during a time of peace, it would be impossible for even the best police forces and military units to capture and reincarcerate all of these criminals within four years. The problem is compounded exponentially by occurring during a time of post-war reconstruction in a country run by a former dictator. Given such circumstances, how can anyone seriously claim that the country should even be close to being stable?
While I don’t think that all of the security issues in Iraq can be blamed on these criminals, a significant amount of the 'insurgent activity" can reasonably be attributed to old fashioned lawlessness. Yet I can’t recall having heard anyone, either from the Left or from the Right, even mention this as a factor. Such an omission is inexcusable and I find it difficult to take any pundit seriously when they fail to take such realities into account.
5. Every Western government believed that Iraq had WMDs -- In a interview with The Atlantic Monthly (Dec. 30, 2003), Kenneth Pollack made clear that Bush is not the only one who believed that Iraq had WMDs:
[The Atlantic] You too were a believer in the idea that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. How did that happen and on what evidence did you come to that conclusion?My evidence came straight from the intelligence community. …I was certainly not alone in this—this was a consensus among the U.S. government, it was a consensus among the UN inspectors, it was a consensus of American experts outside the U.S. government. In fact, it was a consensus in the entire international community.
It's important to remember that any intelligence service or country with the ability to monitor Iraq and its weapons programs—Germany, France, Britain, Russia, Israel—was a hundred percent certain that Saddam had these programs. There may have been some debate over just how aggressive they were or how far along they were. The Germans were the most alarmist of all on the subject of a nuclear weapon. They thought the Iraqis might have one in as little as two or three years. Our own intelligence community tended to be a little more conservative; they thought it was more like four to six years away—or five to seven. But no one doubted that Saddam had these weapons.
...
So there would have been very few, if any, people, who ever posited, even as a hypothetical, that Iraq didn't have any imminent WMD programs?I can't think of anyone who did not believe that the Iraqis had a weapons of mass destruction program. There was simply no one.
6. Economic sanctions helped strengthen Saddam -- With sanctions effectively forbidding all other foreign commerce, Iraq’s only legitimate trade was whatever flowed through Saddam’s ministries under the supervision of the UN program.
The UN even expanded the Oil-For-Food-Program (OFFP) to allow Saddam to import not just food and medicine but oil-industry equipment as well. The cap on the amount of oil that Iraq could sell was also raised from $4 billion to $10 billion a year. Saddam thanked the UN for their generosity by throwing the UN weapons inspectors out of Iraq.
In 2000, Saddam found another way to profit from the venture. As Claudia Rosett wrote in an article in Commentary magazine:
It worked like this. Saddam would sell at below-market prices to his hand-picked customers—the Russians and the French were special favorites—and they could then sell the oil to third parties at a fat profit. Part of this profit they would keep, part they would kick back to Saddam as a "surcharge," paid into bank accounts outside the UN program, in violation of UN sanctions.
This allowed the dictator to pocket billions of dollars that was intended to be used for the relief of the Iraqi people. Emboldened by the UN’s refusal to reign him in, Saddam also began to smuggle out oil through Turkey, Jordan, and Syria. Rather than put a stop to this violation, the UN chose to expand the program even further. In 2002, UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan approved “Oil-for-Food Plus" which added ten new sectors to be funded by the program, including "labor and social affairs," "information," "justice," and "sports." This allowed the UN to aid in financing, as Rossett points out, “the realms of Baathist party patronage, propaganda, censorship, secret police, rape rooms, and mass graves."
7. Iraq was linked to Al Qaeda -- Although you still hear people claim otherwise, Saddam had ties to Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda. As the 9/11 commision chair Thomas Kean told reporters, "Were there contacts between al-Qaida and Iraq? Yes. Some of them were shadowy, but they were there." Vice Chair Lee Hamilton added, "There were connections between al-Qaida and Saddam Hussein's government. We don't disagree with that. What we have said is that we don't have any evidence of a cooperative, or a collaborative relationship between Saddam Hussein's government and these al-Qaida operatives with regard to attacks on the United States [italics added]. So it seems to me that the sharp differences that the press has drawn, that the media has drawn, are not that apparent to me."
8. Democratic politicians like Ted Kennedy predicted that tens of thousands of Americans would die in combat -- Kennedy said, "“The 45,000 body bags the Pentagon has sent to the region are all the evidence we need of the high price in lives and blood we will have to pay." Kennedy also quoted General Joseph Hoar, who warned that when urban warfare broke out in Baghdad, the U.S. could run through “battalions a day at a time” and that the fighting would look like “the last fifteen minutes of 'Private Ryan.'”
9. The pre-war casualty predictions were extremely inflated. -- Before the war, the United Nations predicted that the civilian death toll in Iraq could reach 500,000. Current estimates are between 35,000 -40,000 -- including insurgents and other combatents.
10. The U.S. did not attack Iraq "unilaterally." -- The UN has 148 democracies that were available to join the "Coalition of the Willing":
Albania, Andorra, Angola, Antigua, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, the Bahamas, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bermuda, Bolivia, Bosnia, Botswana, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burundi, Cambodia, Canada, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, Colombia, Comoros, Republic of the Congo, Cook Islands, Costa Rica, Cote d'Ivoire, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, East Timor, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Estonia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, The Gambia, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Greenland, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Indonesia, Ireland, Jamaica, Japan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kiribati, South Korea, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Liberia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Madagascar, Malawi, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Isle of Man, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Moldova, Mongolia, Mozambique, Namibia, Nauru, Nepal, Netherlands Antilles, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Niue, Pakistan, Palau, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russia, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, San Marino, Senegal, Serbia and Montenegro, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Suriname, Switzerland, Taiwan, Tajikistan, Tanzania, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uganda, Ukraine, United Kingdom, Uruguay, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe
Now look at the list of countries that joined our call to action:
Albania, Andorra, Angola, Antigua, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, the Bahamas, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bermuda, Bolivia, Bosnia, Botswana, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burundi, Cambodia, (Canada), Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, Colombia, Comoros, Republic of the Congo, Cook Islands, Costa Rica, Cote d'Ivoire, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, East Timor, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Eritea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, The Gambia, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Greenland, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Indonesia, Ireland, (Israel), Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kiribati, South Korea, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Liberia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Madagascar, Malawi, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Isle of Man, Marshall Islands, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Micronesia, Moldova, Mongolia, Mozambique, Namibia, Nauru, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Niue, Pakistan, Palau, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russia, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, San Marino, Senegal, Serbia and Montenegro, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Suriname, Switzerland, (Taiwan), Tajikistan, Tanzania, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uganda, Ukraine, United Kingdom, Uruguay, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe
What about the other countries? We can't expect nations who were on Saddam's payroll to join us so we can exclude France and Russia. Three other countries refused, for various reasons, to get involved militarily (Germany, Egypt, and Bangladesh). Pakistan has its hands full aiding us in Afghanistan and Switzerland is, as always, neutral, so we can scratch those two as well. The countries that don't have a military (Andorra, Dominica, Kiribati, Mauritius, Panama, Nauru, Tuvalu, Vanuatu) are obviously excluded as are the states that rely on others for their defense (Bermuda, Greenland, Isle of Man, Niue).
Because of the cost to deploy troops to Iraq, we should remove any country with a military budget under $200 million a year (Antigua, Armenia, the Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Benin, Bolivia, Burundi, Cambodia, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Republic of the Congo, Cook Islands, Cote d'Ivoire, Djibouti, Dominica, East Timor, Equatorial Guinea, Fiji, Gabon, The Gambia, Ghana, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Jamaica, Kyrgyzstan, Liberia, Madagascar, Malawi, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Moldova, Mozambique, Namibia, Niger, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, San Marino, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Suriname, Tajikistan, Tanzania, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkmenistan, Zambia, and Zimbabwe).
Once we scrub our list we are left with the following:
Argentina, Austria, Belarus, Belgium, Bosnia, Botswana, Brazil, Chile, Cyprus, Ecuador, Finland, Greece, Indonesia, Ireland, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Mexico, Nepal, Peru, Serbia and Montenegro, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Uruguay, Venezuela, Yemen
These are the remaining democracies--the able but unwilling--that did not join us in overthrowing a brutal dictator.
http://www.evangelicaloutpost.com/mt/mt-trackback.cgi/3458
1
Joe,you can try all you want,you will never transform the criminal invasion of Iraq into anything other than the unmitigated disaster that it is...nor will you ever change the well established FACT that this always was nothing more than a COMMERCIAL venture...most people know that now and eventually,the faith over fact crowd that you hang with is gonna have to come to term with that.
posted on 03.20.2007 2:30 AM2
A flurry of subteleties, Joe, but that misses the real point.
Instead of responding point by point, let me take you back to early 2003 and let you see what life was like for those of us on the other side of the fence, and think about some things supposrters of the war forget about the war:
The Whitehouse has been agitating for war since September. We we are blindsided by this sudden concern about Iraq. After all, we were involved in a war in Afghanistan already. And it seemed like there were countries with much worse terrorist connections, such as Iran, North Korea, Syria, even Pakistan (though not through their official government, admittedly) (and also, incidentally - Sudan). So why Iraq? We were puzzled. In fact people are talking about the brutal repression of Iraqis, but the situation is much worse in North Korea, for one. Actually, all over the Middle East people experience brutal repression, and while it might not match Iraq, it certainly can be competetive. I mean, Iran, hello! So why Iraq? The only apparent answer seems to be, because they get by with it.
Oh, people were talking about the WMD issue. What I knew at the time was that it was possible Iraq had WMD. People like Hans Blix though it could be true, at least at first. Colin Powell, the one guy most of us trusted in this administration, got up and said it was true. I was giving greater than 50-50 odds on the fact in the end. BUT what I also knew was that (1) the presence of such weapons could not be grounds for war and (2) the Whitehouse clearly didn't care whether there were WMDs or not, they were going to war if they felt like it (yes, I thought this in 2003 - no I am not making that up - it was pretty darn obvious). The Whitehouse was not letting weapons inspectors finish inspecting. Plus, they had thrown a whole bunch of issues at the wall to see which ones would stick. WMD and the plight of the Iraqis were the ones that did. But if other reasons had played well, I believed at the time, those would have been used instead.
The plight of the Iraqis... This was the one that gave me pause. Do people really believe that those of us opposeds to this war, opposed to war in general, somehow thought that life under Saddam Hussein was all peaches and cream? Or that we wanted the Iraqi people to suffer? Well, we didn't, or at least I didn't. I can't imagine living in such a repressive place. On the other hand, I also know that Iraq was peaceful and stable, and women and Christians enjoyed certain rights, which is a lot better than it was in some place. Some people still disappear but 99.5% of the population manages to go about their lives - what will war do in such a situation? At best, there will be collateral damage and destruction of infrasturcture such as hospitals and water plants (and possibly even prisons, by the way, though I'm not sure I thought about that one, but you have to assume... I mean, come on...), probably mounting into the tens of thousands, at worst, a destabilized Iraq descending into civil war. There is plenty of precedent for the latter, and so, much concern on that point. Given those dangers, it seems unwise to go to war at this time, especially considering the weakness of the case for war (we should invaded North Korea, at least that would almost make sense...) and the possible trade offs. Most of the people who died under Iraq died in a much earlier era, there is much less need for intervaention now, and war will likely take more lives than it saves.
Even with that though, the pro-war case almost had me going. I wanted to see Iraqis free. I didn't want to see a war, but I would like to see Iraqis free. So, I didn't always voice my opposition as loudly as I wished I had. I think in the back of my head I almost wished you would invade. But when I was rational, when I actually thought about it, it didn't make sense.
My decision to oppose the war was based on two things: (1) The delicate balance between the number of people dying in Iraq, and the number of people who will die in or as a result of war. I could only guess on those, but I couldn't see it coming out better than even with everything taken in to account. (2) A conviction based on so much world history that war never ends neatly, and violence almost always perpetuates more violence. Everyone always thinks they can control violence, they can control war, but it doesn't work that way. Every once in a while it works, but so often it doesn't. And in the process of fighting a war, the seeds of the wars of the next generation are sowed. People become angry about what happened in the last war, even if unintentionally, and you set up a cycle of violence that goes on. I can think of cases where it hasn't happend, but Iraq didn't seem likely to be one of those places. We were already too hated in the Middle East.
This was the real situation in early 2003. But nobody cared. Sheer arrogance one the day as always. No one listened. No one is listening now. "How could we have known?" WE BLEEPIN KNEW. DON'T GIVE ME THAT.
Incidentally, a survey of Iraqis I saw, that was done in late 2003 and early 2004 (I forget when) showed that a majority were glad we had gotten rid of Iraq, but a majority were mad about the cessation and continued failure of basic services like water and electricity, and a majority felt we should leave now that the war was over [that was part of the evidence I saw in considering whether I thought we should withdraw then or not - I concluded we would be better off to, probably with international replacements, as was discussed back in 2004, I think). (I have not seen more recent surveys.] But at least, if that survey was right, you have the fact that the Iraqis agreed with you. That much I will grant you. But I still do not think it was wise course of action. If I had thought a majority of Iraqis would have supported an invasion would I have supported it? I don't know. War has a way of getting much messier than anyone has planned on. The invasion could have been much worse. Instability could have happened earlier so that even with an early withdrawal, things would have been bad. War is NOT a good solution.
I could quibble with some of your points, but in the end it doesn't matter. This is not a dispute about evidence and facts, this is a dispute about beliefs about the nature of offensive war and violence. You believe it can be a force for good, and that it can be practically successful, and I reject both claims with some qualification. When I was very young I was naive enough to believe that an offensive war could liberate the oppressed. But I've grown up since then...
Now, I know you were making a point about Iraq, but since we talked about this earlier... where does this leave Darfur?
First, what's being advocated in Darfur is not necessarily WAR. Not all military actions are created equal in this age of "peacekeeping." Surely no one thinks the delpoyment of US troops to Bosnia was war. So this may not be war. In which case I think the moral and practical case would overwhelmingly be on the side of deployment.
But things are getting more tense, at least between Khartoum and everyone else. Would an action now end up as war? It certainly could. Would it then be moral? If there are ongoing actions against civilians, I would think so. It would be messy, but it would be better than the alternative. There would already be violence, so we would not be adding any violence. And no one could accuse us of inciting conflict. But if there were to be war, incidentally, I think still there would be a difference between strictly defensive war and choosing to actually invade the rest of Sudan. I think that gets much stickier. I don't think I would support a full scale war there. Not that anyone ever asks me...
So I would be willing to support deployment to Darfur. (I would even be willing to go myself if I knew that I was going as a peacekeeper, and not to fight an actual war.)
If people really want an all out war in Sudan, I might give more nuanced answers, but for now let's stick to something I would support fully.
posted on 03.20.2007 2:42 AM3
Ben Martin
posted on 03.20.2007 3:14 AMwe re not going to go to Darfur and the reason for this is self evident...there no monney to be made there like there is in Iraq.
4
Kumar
Chennai
India.
After entering Iraq. No WMD's were found. War in Iraq has not ended terrorism .... Most probably created more bitterness among the middle east community and their friends across the world. Is the world better of Now ? Were there other methods of curbing terrorism originating from Iraq ? What has happened while the concentration was on Iraq , has Al qaeda regrouped , has terrorism become more deep rooted ? Answers we will have to find at the earliest to move in the direction of a long term solution.
posted on 03.20.2007 5:23 AMHow to limit terrorism , the answer maybe a coordinated effort in intelligence, and policies in arm sales. We will have to do some hard thinking on our attitudes towards Id's and related "Big Brother watching" issues. Could help in tracking of terrorists thru study of movement patterns of suspects. Radical solutions necessary in this area.
Identification and severely restrict illegal sale of arms. Tougher Penalties and laws for default. Identification of countries which are lax on such sales and activity , monitoring of travel to and from such countries. Existing law and policies may cover this to a good extent , but are they coordinated and implemented effectively ?
5
For the first time in my life I'm responding to a blog; this one I couldn't resist.
What a load of crap. And not one word about the U.S. dollars Saddam wouldn't accept as payment for Iraqi oil...
I'm with your pal Ludwig: Try as you might the invasion (and might I add an illegal one at that) of Iraq was never more than a commercial venture -- one I like to refer to as Operation Expansion GNP.
Iraqis will lead better lives now that they'll have access to Nike sneakers, Levi jeans, McDonald's, Pizza Hut, Britney Spears CDs, and not to be overlooked, cell phones! What would life be without a cell phone?
Hurrah for freedom!
posted on 03.20.2007 5:34 AM6
When I posted over on DailyKos that we *could* win the war, the scoffing was deafening. And while I have general reservations about the situation, the Left is so far off base I can't come anywhere near their position. All of the economic suppositions are speculative and cries of "Oil" and "Halliburton" amount to mere cheerleading.
Sadly, the Left may well send our soldiers to Darfur out of an act of the Religious Left's new political morality.
What many forget is why we went into the Balkans -- the shell game of public opinion that was played through the media for months ahead of time:
1. We can't go in. WWI started because of a conflict there.
2. Oh, there's no problem. Now we can go in.
This was based on a lie worse than the Iraq reasons of national interest -- it was the UN game. And it got a patriotic soldier dishonorably discharaged for not wishing to wear UN colors.
Collin
posted on 03.20.2007 7:33 AMhttp://evangelicalperspective.blogspot.com
7
Great post Joe.
posted on 03.20.2007 8:11 AMA very simple and logical reminder. And the Left writes again in pure emotion and hate for the President. The thing that has me scratching my head is my personal friends that have been to Iraq and in battle. The stories of success, aid, and friendships is amazing. The Left does not want success in Iraq. Hate is a terrible thing. And it's somehow tied to decreasing intelligence.
8
The prosecution of this war and its outcome are bona fide disasters, but questioning our decision to enter Iraq is revisionist and partisan at best. Tommy Franks pointed out in his book that Egyptian, Jordanian, British, Russian, and Israeli intel all corroborated our WMD story. It's easy to armchair quarterback now, but with the World Trade Center rubble still smoldering, what would you have done when presented with the same information??
posted on 03.20.2007 8:59 AM9
The most publicised reason we went to war with iraq was the fact we were 'getting the WMD's out'. This was obviously false, but, one of a long list of to-do's in the US, one of which, her & the rest of the worlds safety.
In the end, everyother country is thoroughly gutless unless the US steps up to the block first. The US went in here with solid gold intentions, backed by her allies, and has made drastic efforts to make todays world a safer place from terrorism.
If anyone argues this war was a bad idea, and we should go chat with terrorists and reason for our own freedom, then by god you may as well go join the terrorists! You want to reason with a country linked with terrosism and attempt to 'solve our problems'? If so, then, I say everyone of you who thinks the US is wrong, go over and start your 'diplomacies' and fix it!
posted on 03.20.2007 9:04 AM10
THOU SHALT NOT BEAR FALSE WITNESS.
posted on 03.20.2007 10:04 AM[especially true when you lie to support something that caused the needless death and injury to hundreds of thousands of people]
11
I don't think the oil connection is just "cheerleading."
"Whose Oil is it Anyway?"
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/03/13/opinion/edjuhasz.php
I also wonder about the sell on the WMD. As displayed the last few weeks in the Libby/Cheney Plame scandal, the administration was not interested in facts that interrupted their plans on Iraq. Besides as Reagon said "The Buck stops here."
posted on 03.20.2007 10:12 AM12
If I may add to this discussion, I have done a great deal of research on the war to liberate Iraq.
Congress listed more reasons than Joe, I gave my analysis of the reasons for going to war here (I would post them but this comment would be longer than Joes post + the comment thread to this point if I did).
Additionally, since many of the commenters are mislead on whether there were WMDs (there were) you can read the proof here.
To bolster support / add proof to the contention that Saddam and Al Qaeda did have a relationship, I put together a selection of 9/11 commission report quotes here. Essentially the US government said that despite their differences they were on friendly terms. We have no evidence that they were involved in an "operational" relationship, but both sides sought out such a relationship. The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence, so we don't know exactly how close they ended up working together.
Lastly, for these idiots who think this is really about oil, IF we wanted Saddam's oil we could have just lifted sanctions and begun a trading relationship. Economists have pointed out that even if we did have a plan to flat out steal every drop of oil from Iraq, the profits from oil could NEVER offset the costs of going to war and keeping control of the newly acquired oil fields. It would take between 10 and 20 years at this point to offset the cost of going in, and that is if we stole every drop of oil and every dollar of revenue. Thus far that has NOT occurred. The myth about the war being for oil is a poorly thought out myth, but then again these moonbats who believe that aren't exactly big thinkers.
posted on 03.20.2007 10:22 AM13
The US went in here with solid gold intentions,
The road to hell is paved with...
posted on 03.20.2007 10:27 AM14
To those who keep up the rant that the war was "illegal," a few facts for you: a unanimous UN Security Council vote in October 2002 told Saddam to comply with the previous 17 UN resolutions or else face the consequences.
The 1991 Gulf War technically never ended: Saddam signed a cease-fire, not a truce or a surrender. The cease-fire was contingent upon his complying with the UN mandate to disarm and prove that he had destroyed all his WMD, which in 1991 even Saddam admitted having (and which he had already used against the Iranians and Kurds). Saddam flouted the terms of the cease-fire, so resumption of hostilities was warranted by that fact.
The Left is so blinded by BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome) that they'll keep repeating the same lies just to keep their heads from exploding.
posted on 03.20.2007 11:29 AM15
bean-headed
posted on 03.20.2007 11:55 AMThe 1991 was did end with a cease-fire under the condition that Saddam would dismantle his chemical and biological programs and arsenal....WHICH HE DID,as confirmed that Scott Ritter as early as 1998...you remmeber him...he was the one weapons inspector that was actually interested in doing his job as opposed to doing some policital croniesm for the powers that be...he was roundly ridiculed by the washington who's who as well as the press and commonly refered to as Saddam's whipping boy...yet his report was 100% accurate down to the last dot...to this day,no one has even appologised for calling him a liar all this time. But thats probably because he was never really believed to be a liar by anyone...he was just telling one of those inconveniant truths that conflicted with the administration NEED for this invasion,which their corporate overlords had been requesting for some time...and thats the bottom line...this whole fiasco was nothing more than a war profiteering venture...which was still illegal last time i checked
16
The 1991 Gulf War technically never ended: Saddam signed a cease-fire, not a truce or a surrender. The cease-fire was contingent upon his complying with the UN mandate to disarm and prove that he had destroyed all his WMD, which in 1991 even Saddam admitted having (and which he had already used against the Iranians and Kurds).
Did he not comply?
In any event, the war was so badly run that any trust in Bush to do any good is destroyed.
I wonder who the "blinded" are here.
posted on 03.20.2007 12:01 PM17
It's hard for me to believe that people are still defending this war.
posted on 03.20.2007 12:01 PM18
It's hard to imagine people still defending this war? The Left has been, if nothing else, consistent. Back in the 60s they sent people into 'Nam and then went dove. Same today. One Pres. candidate in '72 even stated in his ads that the was one of the first hawks to turn dove. That makes the lies of the Left (lies by deception: they were for it before they were against it) very consistent and now visible in an historical pattern.
I am still wondering if the Left wants to win anything? They certainly don't want to even protect our borders.
posted on 03.20.2007 12:12 PM19
Oh, that would be the same Scott Ritter who took a $400,000 bribe from Saddam to make a "film" that somehow never got made.
Here's a great book for you to read: "Generation Kill" by Evan Wright, a reporter for that notorious Bush administration propaganda organ, Rolling Stone. Wright was embedded with a Marine recon unit in the initial war, and he reports that they captured several Iraqis who were fully kitted up for chemical warfare. No, they said, their unit did not have the WMD, but the next unit over did. Even Saddam's generals thought he had WMD, and they planned their defensive tactics accordingly.
Ludwig, you need to get over your hate-fueled delusions. I think lithium works well for that.
posted on 03.20.2007 12:13 PM20
I did a check up on the Ritter bribe and it didn't pan out. Furthmore those documents they found in the big raid have not, as far as I know, been, cleared.
My opinion is that all this talk, generated from hate radio, about the left being against America is not true. We are all Americans who care for our country.
posted on 03.20.2007 12:28 PM21
fabulinous, don't insult our intelligence, the link you gave for "proof" of WMD's doesn't support your position (but you are trying very hard to spin it that way). It's common knowledge that Saddaam had and used chemical weapons against his own people and Iran back in the 80's and 90's. It is also well known that the vast majority of those chemical weapons had been destroyed, the weapons inspectors after the first gulf war saw to that there wasn't very much that went unaccounted for. There is evidence that Saddaam did *try* to acquire additional chemical supplies, but was largely unsuccessfull. And as you truthfully note, by the time we invaded Iraq, what was left over had been degraded and was leaking out of their containers and no longer weaponizable.
In other words, Iraq's so-called WMD's did not constitute a clear and present danger to the US in 2003.
posted on 03.20.2007 12:34 PM22
Slate.com on Scott Ritter:
posted on 03.20.2007 12:50 PM23
bean-headed
posted on 03.20.2007 1:22 PMI m still waiting for you to dispute the veracity of the Ritter report...i mean,that would lend some credibility to your charge that Ritter was on Saddam's payroll if the report he made was false...but since the report was completely accurate in every details,what would be the point of bribing him? I realise that in your head as well as in the head of all the "faith-over-facts" crowd,an american or Iraqi descent with some sympathies for Saddam Husseim giving monney to that the truth comes out directly translate to "Saddam bribed Scott to lie" but here on planet earth,it really doesnt...nice try though
24
No, Ludwig, you need to address the facts, amply cited, that everyone, including Saddam's generals, European intelligence agencies and many, many prominent Democrats including Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Al Gore, Bill Clinton and Ted Kennedy all thought Saddam had WMD. Even Saddam admitted to having them at the end of the Gulf War, and Hans Blix even said that Saddam had not complied with the promises he'd made then, i.e., proof that he'd destroyed the weapons. Playing his endless shell game was not proof.
Ritter is a nut-case. Read the rest of the Slate article. His conclusions were derived by whatever anti-American drug he'd suddenly taken, not by the facts on the ground.
posted on 03.20.2007 1:30 PM25
for some reason,my response to your latest comment is being held up,beanny...hopefully you ll get to read it...cheers.
posted on 03.20.2007 2:15 PM26
Why did all these people including democrats believe in the WMD when there were none? Who wanted their oil and who was hell bent on finding evidence even if it was faulty. They say the lead to claims of yellow cake being sought after by Saddam was a pathetic piece of Italian forgery. Reagon said "The buck stops here." The Bush administration are the ones who went after the evidence, its his responsibility.
posted on 03.20.2007 2:49 PM27
bean:
lol, well done with respect to the Ritter issue. on the other hand, there's Ludwig's juvenile name-calling. That's an indicator he's running out of hot air..
posted on 03.20.2007 3:06 PM28
Regardless of how one feels about the reason(s) for going to war in Iraq, I am absolutly convinced that had we been able to get in and get out in a year and a half instead of 4 years, the impatient American people would have supported the war. It seams that we have turned into a nation of people who have instant gratification issues and want things done NOW. America loves a winner but has no patience to become one.
posted on 03.20.2007 3:19 PMI have my doubts about why we went there but to get out now will be a disaster. Looking back, maybe just maybe, we would have been better off to stay in Afganistan instead of going to Iraq,,, but wait.... that has been more than 4 years also,,, so lets pull out.
Geesh.
29
Regardless of how one feels about the reason(s) for going to war in Iraq, I am absolutly convinced that had we been able to get in and get out in a year and a half instead of 4 years, the impatient American people would have supported the war. It seams that we have turned into a nation of people who have instant gratification issues and want things done NOW. America loves a winner but has no patience to become one.
posted on 03.20.2007 3:19 PMI have my doubts about why we went there but to get out now will be a disaster. Looking back, maybe just maybe, we would have been better off to stay in Afganistan instead of going to Iraq,,, but wait.... that has been more than 4 years also,,, so lets pull out.
Geesh.
30
Russ,
What I've found is a lot of solid patriotism in the Liberal crowd but a serious lack of it in the "Left".
I've found a good number who are outspokenly for opening the borders and not defending our allies.
It's the crowd that condemns Israel for defending itself and accepts AP fauxtography as real. They also push for a secularization of the nation (like France after their revolution) as well as an unwillingness (even when confronted) to condemn the Left's violent radicals. There is a real segment of the Left which is anti-American.
Collin
posted on 03.20.2007 3:24 PMhttp://evangelicalperspective.blogspot.com
31
"The Left has been, if nothing else, consistent. Back in the 60s they sent people into 'Nam and then went dove. Same today."
Are you suggesting that pulling out of Vietnam was a mistake? In both cases, the mistake was going in. To the extent that anyone, regardless of party, was responsible for getting us into either conflict he should be criticized. I'm not going to criticize anyone fro admitting a mistake. Right-wingers are starting to look like the hapless Black Knight who, having lost all his limbs, threatens to bite the legs off his adversary.
posted on 03.20.2007 4:14 PM32
"I am still wondering if the Left wants to win anything?"
We want to win the elections, and guys like you are making it much easier.
posted on 03.20.2007 4:16 PM33
I am a member of “the left” and a christian. And guess what? I do not have pointed ears, horns, red skin, and a tail.
posted on 03.20.2007 5:22 PMI love my country and democracy. I believe our country should defend itself, but I some times wonder why it is that our country spends more on defense than all the other nations of the world combined-seems like overkill to me. I do not support each and every military action the elites try to convince us is absolutely necessary for our safety and well-being. I am more afraid of the loss of our democratic way of life than I am of terrorism.
I am a follower of Jesus Christ, not the military industrial complex. In regards to the “war on terror” and invasion/occupation of Iraq maybe we should all try to ask WWJD (What Would Jesus Do?).
34
This is the voice of the antiwar Left, Rob Ryan. Voters will remember it come 2008, no matter how much misgivings they might have about the war itself, and will not give the White House to anyone who panders to these haters.
Or try this site for the "patriotism" of the antiwar Left. (Warning: strong profanity aimed at our troops.)
posted on 03.20.2007 5:36 PM35
Are you suggesting that pulling out of Vietnam was a mistake?
Considering the aftermath of our retreat, it's hard to imagine anybody arguing that it was a wise decision. Let's see, re-education camps, genocide of tribal peoples, denial of religious and political freedom; that was the result of our abandonment of the South Vietnamese and would be the likely result if we abandon the Iraqis.
In both cases, the mistake was going in.
Even if this were so, you don't rectify a past mistake by making an even worse one.
posted on 03.20.2007 5:44 PM36
I should add that all the "principled" and "brave" antiwar protestors in those photos are wearing scarves and masks. Pathetic.
posted on 03.20.2007 5:48 PM37
"lol, well done with respect to the Ritter issue. on the other hand, there's Ludwig's juvenile name-calling. That's an indicator he's running out of hot air.."
posted on 03.20.2007 5:55 PMWhat name calling...just having some "zoolander" fun with his nick thats all...i ve responded to every one of bean's remark but my last post to him got held up for who knows what reason...the essense of it was that Intel agencies across the world suspected that Iraq had no WMDs left to be used in any threatening way but let him keep up the pretense so as not to encourage Iran to invade their now crippled long time enemy. As for Scott Ritter,i ve asked it before and i ll ask again...which specific parts of his report proved to be innacurate?
38
ucfengr,
posted on 03.20.2007 5:59 PMIf the genocide you speak of is the Cambodian Killing fields, then there is more to the story. What was the cause of the rise of Pol Pot? Also was it not the Vietnamese who came in to put a stop to it? Nixon said if we didn't stay in Vietnam we would have the communist in California, sort of the same faulty reasoning we are hearing about Iraq.
39
which specific parts of [Ritter's] report proved to be innacurate?
Was he right because he'd examined the evidence or because he'd suddenly become seized with an irrational anti-Americanism? The Slate.com report makes it pretty clear that Ritter was simply lashing out. If Bill Clinton (and later GWB) said 2+2=4, Ritter would have disagreed.
posted on 03.20.2007 6:01 PM40
Nixon said if we didn't stay in Vietnam we would have the communist in California
Sorry, that was JFK and LBJ. They started the war, remember. Nixon ended it.
It's sad to see so many buy the lazy lie that Vietnam was Nixon's war. It was already a going concern for 5 years when Nixon took office in January 1969.
posted on 03.20.2007 6:03 PM41
Your right on my quote about California, I assumed, incorrectly it was Nixon. I know full well the dems started the war, and I've been trying to educate myself on the matter lately, by reading A Bright Shinning Lie by Neil Sheehan. To say Nixon wasn't responsible for the continuation and escalation of the war isn't all together true. But to go back to the US leaving, the book talks extensively of how complicit the south must have been to have allowed some 20,000 North Vietnamese to creep up on the Saigon during the Tet Offensive.
posted on 03.20.2007 6:24 PM42
EO, looks like you got a lot of Good Little Party Members (TM) ringing in on this comment thread -- Comrade Ludwig, Comrade Ben Martin, Comrade Nutshell, Comrade WeHateBush....
Lots of doubleplusgoodthink,
posted on 03.20.2007 6:31 PMlots of doubleplusgood doubleplusduckspeak,
lots of doubleplusbellyfeel INGSOC,
lots of chunks of floam thrown at the picture of bush/goldstein.
43
Bean,
I'm not altogether satisfied with your Ritter information. The link you provide says a Weakly Standard reported, Stephen F. Heyes said "by Ritter's own words..." But Ritter flatly denies any bribe.
"While he confirmed that he had received money from Mr al-Khafaji, Mr Ritter said that he had had his business associate checked by CIA "sources" via a friend who was a reporter, and was reassured."
posted on 03.20.2007 6:40 PM44
Huh? Of course Ritter is going to deny it was a bribe. Would you really expect him to admit it?
posted on 03.20.2007 6:43 PM45
"Was he right because he'd examined the evidence or because he'd suddenly become seized with an irrational anti-Americanism? "
posted on 03.20.2007 6:49 PMperhaps it would help you you actually went and READ the report...it was a little more comprehensive than a one paragraph document where he repeats "i hate Bush" 45 times. in it you can find the detailed analysis of what Iraq had to begin with,what had been destroyed,what remained under lock and key,ect. The report was no kind to Saddam Husseim either,btw,with numerous documented instances of feet dragging on the part of the Iraqis but as i said, Saddam was walking a fine line between compliance and countering appearace of weakness in the face of its enemy,Iran. you dont "guess" those kinds of details by drinking some "i hate bush" kool-aids
46
"Huh? Of course Ritter is going to deny it was a bribe. Would you really expect him to admit it?"
posted on 03.20.2007 6:55 PMi asked you before and i ask you again...a bribe to do what? present a false report? he didnt. portray Saddamn's regime favorably in his report? he didnt. and if he accepted the so called bride and still did his job with all the integrity that was expected of him when presenting the truth,the whole truth and nothing but the truth in his report which is exactly what he did than what? you moaning that he screwed Saddam over? whats your damn point?
47
Ken
posted on 03.20.2007 6:59 PMLOL...if all else fails,call em commies eh Kenny?
48
"Voters will remember it come 2008, no matter how much misgivings they might have about the war itself, and will not give the White House to anyone who panders to these haters."
Who is pandering to these "haters"? Have I or anyone else stated support for the vandals you allude to? Two can play at the guilt-by-association game.
The voters don't seem to mind pandering to haters, by the way, if by pandering you mean some level of agreement. They elected Bush twice, and I'm sure he got the lion's share of the racist and homophobe vote.
posted on 03.20.2007 7:46 PM49
"Considering the aftermath of our retreat, it's hard to imagine anybody arguing that it [withdrawal from Vietnam] was a wise decision."
I think most reasonable people acknowledge the wisdom of the withdrawal. How many more American lives do you think we should have vainly sacrificed? Or are you so deluded that you think that war was winnable?
posted on 03.20.2007 7:50 PM50
To vainly assume that there was insufficient reason for starting the war (or that there is insufficient reason to finish it in victory) is an exercise in either naivete or dangerous stupidity. Iraq was a threat to American interests, a clear and present danger, and the world collective had shied from eliminating the threat until the United States stepped up to do so. Nobody in their right mind could want to continue the war under recent conditions, but nobody in their right mind could reasonably propose to end it without American victory and expect the status quo to either improve or be maintained.
posted on 03.20.2007 8:03 PM51
Daveleet,
Iraq was a threat to American interests? Like?
posted on 03.20.2007 9:15 PM52
hey never new that about the war. and it just blows my mind anyways just thought i would say this.
posted on 03.20.2007 9:34 PM53
Please note that not one of the anti-war leftists here has responded to ANY of the points in Joe's original post.
I wonder what the moonbats will say if and when there is something that looks like victory in Iraq.
One thing I know they WON'T say: It's Bush's fault.
posted on 03.20.2007 9:44 PM54
Good summary Joe.
It is telling that no one has bothered to respond to any of your points.
posted on 03.20.2007 9:58 PM55
Jinks on JD, you owe me a coke!
posted on 03.20.2007 9:59 PM56
I see that this was a good day not to visit EO. I'm glad I was busy!
You guys are doing a great job of listening and trying to understand each other. Isn't this what makes the web and blogging great?!
posted on 03.20.2007 10:54 PM57
"Please note that not one of the anti-war leftists here has responded to ANY of the points in Joe's original post."
I responded to the ones that had some semblance of merit,like the demented claims that every Intel agencies feared an iminent wmd attack "in the next 15 minutes"...remember that one from tony the british poodle? cuz i do. Iraq was crippled...i knew it was crippled and if I knew it,chances are most Intel guys knew it as well. I also knew exactly what would happen in the aftermath and that anyone who used the term "cakewalk" was either a lying scum or a hopeless moron. And no,i dont have any special powers of divination...i just use my head and follow reasoning to its logical conclusion,something you dont see a lot of in the Faith-over-Facts crowd.
"I wonder what the moonbats will say if and when there is something that looks like victory in Iraq."
posted on 03.21.2007 4:39 AMI cant speak for other moonbats but this one is here to tell you that 10 years from now,there will probably be no Iraq...my prediction is this....a Kurdistan in constant conflict with Turkey,a central Sunni region which may or may not be called Iraq and a new Shiite province of Iran in the south.
58
I responded to the ones that had some semblance of merit,like the demented claims that every Intel agencies feared an iminent wmd attack "in the next 15 minutes"
Only in the world of moonbats do demented claims have some semblance of merit.
Incredible.
posted on 03.21.2007 7:52 AM59
Lets not get too far off topic on the past wars we've fought, they serve as reminders, and every war is different, let us not dwell on the successes & failures. I'm not going to argue for or against here, I've already made my point near the top, however, I would like to question the following extracts:
"...whole fiasco was nothing more than a war profiteering venture" How can you call this a "war profiteering venture" when the war costs billions upon billions? The oil, while can earn Billions and billions, will not pay for this war, and business in the US & around the world would not alter drastically, if anything, you would see an increase in gold purchasing, nothing more. If your going to argue the US and the rest of the world is running out of oil, sure, I'll agree there, but not to the point of invasion, not by a long shot. This war had nothing to do with economic ventures. All I'm saying is that comment is a load of BS with no evidence, nor logic behind it.
"Iraq's so-called WMD's did not constitute a clear and present danger to the US in 2003"
How so? Now, let me get this straight, if I were the superpower of the world, I should not act on information presented to me that suggests that at any point in the future (It could be tomorrow, it could be in twenty years) a hostile country will become a major threat to my country & houses/helps/aids organisations that are currently my sworn enemy (do i really need to mention the various terrorist organisations?)
But, I should not act? I shold wait till they have a nice plump array of weapons, glowing in the heart of their country? Wow, what a world we would live in if you were in charge! My guess is we'd all be armed with Nuclear weapons and dealing in plutonium rather than the dollar.
My point is if we wait, we give them the ability to get the weapons we fear, and they can use against us, or our allies. Look at it this way.
If Iraq did get WMD's, you all know that the range is pretty poor, and they most likley wouldnt reach the USA unless they had the best rockets and silo's (which we can assume they didnt have). They would have looked to the USA's allies, perhaps Israel? England? They would have killed innocents in spite of the USA, they already did it on their own people, whats to stop them form doing it to the guy next door?
posted on 03.21.2007 8:17 AM60
I think Tim L has something of a point. Speaking exclusively for myself, I am just a little frustrated with the whole thing, and sometimes I let that frustration speak instead of really thinking about how we all might enhance our understanding of the experience, as opposed to practicing self-justification. (Just don't mistake that patience for any thought that I might for half a second agree with Joe's argument :) )
Blaze:
I think you should reconsider pre-emptive was as a general methodolgy for getting rid of non-conventional weapons. The problem is that there are too many nations who (1) already have them or (2) could get them easily. And the vast majority of such nations are too militarily powerful or too popular internationally to be able to be able to eliminate them militarily. We can already see where this sort of discussion leads us, since now people are talking about Iran. If Iraq was barely practicable, Iran is veritable suicide (at least in my judgment, which admittedly doesn't count for much). And that still leaves us with North Koreas and whomever else comes down the line next. North Koreas would also be suicide - and that one I know even George Bush agrees with me on.
More importantly though, this is ethically more than a little sketchy. Basically, you're trading in actual lives lost now (in civilian casulties through "collateral damage" not to mention soldiers, on both sides) for potential lives lost later. I don't see that that's a wise or fair trade.
The irony of course is that in fact the US approach to Iraq had - for all the problems with embargoes and such - already worked. We just didn't know it, and went to war to get rid of WMD which we had already gotten rid of. You could of course argue that they might have tried for WMD in the future, but I haven't really heard any analysts (as opposed to pundits) suggesting that that was in a any way likely.
(Oh, and just for the record, even as someone opposed to the war, I have to admit that I don't find the economic argument about the beginning of the war compelling. A lot of people on both sides have pointed out that there was not much money to be made on oil in this case, and the cost of the war certainly hasn't been beneficial to our government.)
posted on 03.21.2007 8:57 AM61
Maybe I'll respond to Joe's ten things about Iraq later. For now, I'll just say-even if everything he said was correct, our invasion/occupation of Iraq in no way meets a Just War criteria and that why, as a christian, I can not support this administration's actions in Iraq.
Let's stipulate that victory in Iraq means Iraqis can live their lives in relative peace and control their own destiny. Sorry, that's just not possible while we are still occupying the county.
posted on 03.21.2007 10:13 AM62
Wow, strong opinions in the comments here. I guess it's not surprising.
One key question is whether the war is a "just war". Last week, I posted on Christian Perspectives on War, reviewing points of the Just War theory. I think there may be reasons to suggest that this war, while well intentioned, does not abide by a couple of the basic principles.
Just something to consider.
posted on 03.21.2007 11:21 AM63
Wow, strong opinions in the comments here. I guess it's not surprising.
One key question is whether the war is a "just war". Last week, I posted on Christian Perspectives on War, reviewing points of the Just War theory. I think there may be reasons to suggest that this war, while well intentioned, does not abide by a couple of the basic principles.
Just something to consider.
posted on 03.21.2007 11:21 AM64
Every objection to this post is either based on 20/20 hindsight or is some version of "I don't care about logic, I just hate Bush!". Interesting. Have a point before opening your pie holes, people.
posted on 03.21.2007 11:31 AM65
"...whole fiasco was nothing more than a war profiteering venture" How can you call this a "war profiteering venture" when the war costs billions upon billions? The oil, while can earn Billions and billions, will not pay for this war, and business in the US & around the world would not alter drastically, if anything, you would see an increase in gold purchasing, nothing more. If your going to argue the US and the rest of the world is running out of oil, sure, I'll agree there, but not to the point of invasion, not by a long shot. This war had nothing to do with economic ventures. All I'm saying is that comment is a load of BS with no evidence, nor logic behind it."
Oh for pete's sake you re like a child...and a retarded one at that. I specificaly said that the war profiteering is taking place AT THE EXPENSE of the american tax payers,not to their benefit. The very corporations who lobbied for this war to take place,who received fat juicy no bid governement contracts are the only ones who benefited from the invasion of Iraq. Oil is a key element to this as well but not the only one by far. I would suggest you see a documentary titled :Iraq for Sale:the war profiteers which focus on the activities of some of these,like KBR...i promise you your jaw will be on the floor when you see the sheer level of malfeasance displayed by these criminals.
"If Iraq did get WMD's, you all know that the range is pretty poor, and they most likley wouldnt reach the USA unless they had the best rockets and silo's (which we can assume they didnt have). They would have looked to the USA's allies, perhaps Israel? England? They would have killed innocents in spite of the USA, they already did it on their own people, whats to stop them form doing it to the guy next door? "
posted on 03.21.2007 11:46 AMI see..so your point is that if Iraq,by some miraculous bending of the fabric of time and space,had managed to get nuclear weapons,their first order of business would have been to launch them at Jerusalem and thus invite their own nuclear obliteration at the hand of Israel which DOES have nukes? Let me give you a little insight into Saddam's mind...he did not hate Israel...he did not hate the US...he did not hate me,you,your mom,your dog ,"our freedom",your Jesus (under Saddam's rule,christians were actually safe in Iraq...they re not anymore),ect...Saddam hated poverty....HIS poverty to be precise. He loved to live the rich palace life...he loved to drink...he loved to eat...he loved to do all manor of things that come with being the king of your own little country,which he was,presidential titles aside. Now,the sort of life he enjoyed is only possible if He 's alive to enjoy it and so with that in mind,what possible motivation would he have had to conspire with terrorist groups who were planning attacks agains the US when it was clear that he would have been blamed for their actions,regardless of the evidence. When 911 occured,the first thing the Bush administration wanted to do was to bomb Iraq. Think about it for a second and get back to me.
66
The worry I see in all this debate is that we're not learning our lesson in being slow and very careful before going to war. The same shabby excusses are popping up concerning Iran. There have even been people saying that some want war because it fulfills some rapture predictions.
posted on 03.21.2007 12:13 PM67
Responses to Joe's 10 things about the invasion/occupation of Iraq:
1. True
posted on 03.21.2007 12:23 PM2. True, see Project for New American Century website (letters to Clinton)
3. True, but invasion/occupation of Iraq still does not meet the Just War criteria.
4. True, but invasion/occupation of Iraq still does not meet the Just War criteria.
5. Sure he had them-we sold them to him, but he later destroyed them.
6. Maybe, but our sanctions caused the deaths of approximately 500,000 Iraqis.
7. Not true, but even if it was the invasion/occupation of Iraq still does not meet the Just War criteria.
8. The war is still wrong and the invasion/occupation of Iraq still does not meet the Just War criteria.
9. UN was pretty much right in it’s estimates (see the Lancet study on excess death rate in Iraq after our invasion/occupation). Not all deaths caused by the war are directly caused by combat, yet the people are still just as dead and their deaths were not necessary.
10. Be honest. We initiated and lead this invasion/occupation of Iraq.
68
Responding to Russ (posted on 03.20.2007 9:15 PM): American interests include the dozens of fighter jets fired upon while patrolling the no fly zones between 91 & 03. Our interests include support of allies (e.g. Israel, Turkey and any ally trading with Iraq) who were, albeit rhetorically, threatened by Saddam's regime. Our interests include the political & economic stability of the entire middle east (yes, because of oil). Our interests include upholding the concept of law-based UN oversight of preventing international conflicts. And, I believe, our national pride & standing in the community of nations was threatened by a defiant dictator flipping off successively weaker American administrators.
posted on 03.21.2007 3:15 PM69
Russ (posted on 03.21.2007 12:13 PM), how long would you say a slow approach to war should take? With Iraq, it was a 12-year approach.
posted on 03.21.2007 3:19 PM70
If the genocide you speak of is the Cambodian Killing fields
No Russ, I am talking about the genocide of the Vietnamese Hmong tribes.
I think most reasonable people acknowledge the wisdom of the withdrawal.
Rob, I always find it amusing that when leftists talk of "reasonable people" they are mainly referring to people who agree with them.
How many more American lives do you think we should have vainly sacrificed?
How many Vietnamese (not to mention Cambodians, Laotians, and for that matter Afghanis) were sacrificed so that we could indulge the liberals' preference for totalitarian regimes?
Or are you so deluded that you think that war was winnable?
The war was won. We had a stable, democratic South Vietnam. It was only when the Democratic Congress forbade President Ford from providing any support to our South Vietnamese allies that the Communist-supported North was able to overrun the South and bring about their Maoist dreams.
5. Sure he had them-we sold them to him, but he later destroyed them.
Who's we, white man? Did you sell Saddam WMD's, John, cause I sure didn't. The French sold him his nuclear reactor; the one the Israelis took out. So "we" didn't sell him any nukes. Did we sell him any chemical weapons? I suppose it is arguable that we sold him equipment that allowed him to make chemical weapons, but since all of the equipment used to make chemical weapons is also used to make pesticides, it's kind of hard to blame us for selling him chemical weapons. It'd be kind of like blaming Ford for selling cars to people who drive drunk.
posted on 03.21.2007 3:40 PM71
Cheney responded to why they didn't go all the way in the Gulf War and he said it would become a quagmire and the setting up of a new government would be very tricky, so it would probably been better in the US interests not to bog our troops down there years later. We left unfinished business in Afghanistan. Iraq pulled away much needed resources, especially Arabic speakers. Going about securing the oil in a bombastic way, was the wrong way. In fact the president's own intelligence agency has clearly stated that the war has created more terrorism and the esteem of the US around the world has gone down.
posted on 03.21.2007 4:22 PMUcfengr,
Thanks for your response. I was totally unaware of the Hmoung genocide.
72
"We" sold Saddam the WMD's in the sense that "We" also invaded and occupied Iraq. You see, when the President orders the military to invade and occupy a country, these actions are done in our name.
posted on 03.21.2007 5:50 PM73
"How many Vietnamese (not to mention Cambodians, Laotians, and for that matter Afghanis) were sacrificed so that we could indulge the liberals' preference for totalitarian regimes?"
posted on 03.21.2007 6:08 PM____
The decision to become totalitarian was the Vietnamese's. The liberals did not loose that war. Do you really think we should have bombed them more? The point where America said enough is enough is when 20,000 enemy troops infiltrated through South Vietnamese territory to invade Saigon during Tet. Also, we were the country which bombed Cambodia and made it so unstable that Pol Pot could come to power.
74
"I see..so your point is that if Iraq,by some miraculous bending of the fabric of time and space,had managed to get nuclear weapons,their first order of business would have been to launch them at Jerusalem and thus invite their own nuclear obliteration at the hand of Israel which DOES have nukes?"
Not necessarily as plain as you described 'launch them at jerusalem'. However, by giving our enemies WMD's we give them huge leverage. We did not want Iraq or terrorist organisations gaining WMD's & as a result, leverage over us. You also say "by some miraculous bending of the fabric of time and space,had managed to get nuclear weapons". Do you think it's that hard to get nuclear weapons? Theres literally hundreds of lost or uncontrolled nuclear weapons, many of them in the middle-east/europe & russian zones. Many of the weapons had been found and naturalised, but still, many remain.
"what possible motivation would he have had to conspire with terrorist groups who were planning attacks agains the US when it was clear that he would have been blamed for their actions,regardless of the evidence" The motivation? This is pathetic. Do you really think a life style would hold him back? Do you see Bill gates or Paul allen resigning from their positions because they have 'anough money & a nice lifestyle?' No, they strive for more, to achieve more. Why must saddam be any different?
Of course Israel has nukes, and of course, if Iraq or anyone else decided to attempt to take over, control or Kill Israel/ies they would use them as a last resort I have no doubt. In spite, terrorist organisations and countries such as Iraq (while iraq's people are not guilty, those who support terrorism are) that have the capability to harm people would eventually lead to a war, its inevitable.
Ben Martin & Daveleet, you posted some comments earlier which I agree with, although not completly in some areas, I advise people to revise their posts as they are very un-bias and logically thought out with the evidence Joe (and others) gave.
posted on 03.21.2007 6:44 PM75
The decision to become totalitarian was the Vietnamese's.
So, the South Vietnamese called up the North and said "Hey, we want to be in your little totalitarian regime. Would you mind invading us and killing off a good number of our people and sending another good number off to re-education camps, and then suppressing our political and religious freedoms? You will, gee thanks a lot. Next Tuesday good for your?" If I point a gun at you and tell you to give me your wallet, and you do, did you "decide" to give me your wallet?
The liberals did not loose that war.
Sure they did.
Do you really think we should have bombed them more?
Yes, I do, but then I have always thought human freedom and dignity was worth a very high price. Liberals, on the other hand have no problem with totalitarian regimes.
posted on 03.21.2007 6:59 PM76
Believing that, no wonder you hate liberals. This will sound condescending, sorry, but get a history book.
posted on 03.21.2007 7:15 PM77
Unfengr,
Refresh my memory-why where we in Vietnam. What's your take on that?
[I mean besides the "dominoe theory"]
JohnW
posted on 03.21.2007 7:35 PM78
Believing that, no wonder you hate liberals. This will sound condescending, sorry, but get a history book.
Not sure who wrote this, but it wasn't me.
posted on 03.21.2007 7:46 PM79
ucfengr, I wrote it, I must have entered your name . very sorry,
posted on 03.21.2007 7:50 PM80
It is hard to be for the war...it really is.
But I think what has been missing in this national debate is some historical perspective. Both perspective on what led to this war and how bad it is on a historical scale. You are a little to conservative for me frequently, Joe, but I think you are on to something with this post.
I'll keep reading.
posted on 03.21.2007 7:55 PM81
"Liberals, on the other hand have no problem with totalitarian regimes."
Not just an inaccurate assumption, a very stupid one.
posted on 03.21.2007 8:23 PM82
Not just an inaccurate assumption, a very stupid one.
Da' Nile ain't just a river in Egypt, Rob, but I'll go even further. Many on the left prefer totalitarian regimes, as long as they don't have to live in them. Your side supports the one in Cuba, facilitated the creation of the one in South Vietnam, and are now hoping for ones in Iraq and probably Israel if you get your way.
Refresh my memory-why where we in Vietnam. What's your take on that?
The same reason we are in every war, john, to make money the Exxon and Haliburton. Duh.
posted on 03.21.2007 8:53 PM83
Believing that, no wonder you hate liberals.
Personally, I don't hate liberals; I just don't have much patience with them.
This will sound condescending, sorry, but get a history book.
My personal library of books on history is very extensive, thank you. Read them all at least once, most twice or more.
posted on 03.21.2007 9:29 PM84
Unfengr,
I really wanted to hear why you thought we were involved in Vietnam-I thought it might give me some insight into your thinking about how "the left" loves ruthless totalitarian regimes and hates the American government which just wants to spread democracy and wealth all around the world.
JohnW
posted on 03.21.2007 9:33 PM85
Ucfengr,
I'm not arguing with you or anything, you can have your opinion, I am a liberal, and I'm glad you dont hate me, I would like to ask though. Why don't you have much time for them? As in, is it because Liberals are too free willed? (not trying to sound aggressive, its just sounding that way)
posted on 03.22.2007 2:28 AM86
I really wanted to hear why you thought we were involved in Vietnam
John, US involvement in Vietnam was a natural extension of the Truman Doctrine. The Truman Doctrine attempted to contain Soviet expansion by providing military and economic aid to countries in danger of falling into the Soviet sphere. US involvement in Greece, Turkey, and the Korean Peninsula are examples of the Truman Doctrine of containment. Of course, this was a time when Democrats supported democratic governments; a time that has long past.
As in, is it because Liberals are too free willed?
Blaze, free will is not something I associate with liberalism. I have always observed that within liberalism, conformity is very strictly enforced. Try being a liberal and disagreeing with the consensus on "global warming" or "gay marriage" or the War in Iraq.
posted on 03.22.2007 9:47 AM87
Uncfengr,
Thanks for your thoughts on the Vietnam war. Now I see the Iraq war makes perfect sense. The Cold War is over. We don't have to worry about Communism, Terrorism is the big threat.
Democrats don't support democratic governments? I disagree, what do you think happened in the mid-term elections? Seems to me that the people spoke (even if they were deluded by the liberal media).
posted on 03.22.2007 10:02 AM88
Terrorism is the big threat.
Terrorism is a tactic, Islamic fascism is the "big threat".
Democrats don't support democratic governments?
With some notable exceptions (Joe Lieberman prominent among them), no Democrats don't support democratic regimes. I would be happy to be proven wrong here, so please feel free to name a few recent examples of places where Democrats favored the establishment of a democratic government, where there isn't one now, and actually been willing to do something more than talk about it.
posted on 03.22.2007 10:45 AM89
I believe democrats support the Canadian, Mexican, all European and every other legitimate government. The republicans didn't like the Agentine democratic government, so they killed it. Furthmore, if one thing could be pointed at as to being the cause of the cold war's end, it would be the Russian's idiotic invasion of Afghanistan. That war, along with the help of US aid to rebels, drained Russia.
posted on 03.22.2007 11:08 AM90
"Islamic fascism" sounds very menancing and threatening, but is merely a made up word that has no basis in reality. Fascism involves strong elements of nationalism and corporatism, not present amoung Islamic terrorist groups.
The use of the phrase "Islamic fascism" or "Islamofascism" is used by the Bush administration to imply that the so-called "war on terror" is really an epic struggle or a re-fighting World War II.
posted on 03.22.2007 11:50 AM91
I believe democrats support the Canadian, Mexican, all European and every other legitimate government.
Actually my challenge (if you will) was to identify places where Democrats support the establishment of a democratic government where one doesn't currently exist. Supporting democracy where it currently exists doesn't require much courage or sacrifice. For example, would the current Democratic party advocate active measures to overthrow the totalitarian regimes of Iran, North Korea, Cuba, or Syria, or do Democrats consider those to be "legitimate governments" worthy of their support?
The republicans didn't like the Agentine democratic government, so they killed it.
I suspect you are referring to the Chilean Coup of 1973 which overthrew Allende and installed Pinochet. I really don't know if this qualifies as a "recent" example, but let's look at it. While it is clear that Allende was initially democratically elected, it is not at all clear that he intended to rule democratically. The reason he was overthrown by the Chilean military (with at least financial support from the US) was because it was feared that he would establish a Cuban-style dictatorship in Chile.
posted on 03.22.2007 12:13 PM92
ucfengr,
Where there may have been doubt about Allende's democraticness, there would be little doubt with Pinochet, a ruthless dictator.
posted on 03.22.2007 12:23 PM93
John, I suspect if you had your druthers you would call it the "Bush-Haliburton War of Genocide against the noble, peaceful, and religiously ambiguous peoples of the Middle East". Hey, that's kind of catchy, perhaps I should trademark it.
posted on 03.22.2007 12:29 PM94
there would be little doubt with Pinochet, a ruthless dictator.
Who, never the less, voluntarily relinquished power in free and open elections. For all his faults, this distinguishes him positively from Castro, Kim Il Jung, the Iranian mullahs, and the Al Assad family, among others. That said, I do find it interesting that you never attempt to show that there are totalitarian regimes currently in existence that Democrats would support taking active measures to overthrow, preferring instead to focus on a non-recent example where Republicans (and Democrats too, Scoop Jackson for example) supported the overthrow of a budding Communist dictatorship in the USA's backyard.
posted on 03.22.2007 12:48 PM95
Uncengr,
Regarding your comments at No. 93.
No, I simply call it a load of BS and since I love America and democracy, I am letting everyone know that I don't believe the lies and fear-mongering being pushed on us by the government.
posted on 03.22.2007 1:02 PM96
As stated by a much earlier post, the Vietnam war was started by democrates.
JohnW,
posted on 03.22.2007 1:09 PMT agree with that!
97
The last time the US let public opinion decide what to do during war time we, as a nation, facilitated, by our action of withdrawal, the murder over nearly 3 MILLION people. 1.2 million Cambodians, an estimated 700,000 "boat people" and hundreds of thousands of South Vietnamese.
REGARDLESS of the perceived reasons for going to war, which ARE legally sound or Bush WOULD HAVE ALREADY been impeached, WE CAN NOT simply abandon the people of Iraq.
3,000 military deaths is tragic, yes, but nothing compared to the slaughter that would occur if we let Al Qaeda and the hard line extremists set up shop and take over the country.
Iraq must prevail as a free and sovereign nation. until I hear a moonbat explain how withdrawal will lead to lasting peace among people who WANTED TO KILL US long before Bush was elected, I'm supporting the president and our troops (just not on immigration!).
posted on 03.22.2007 1:15 PM98
As stated by a much earlier post, the Vietnam war was started by democrates.
Russ, again you keep having to go farther and farther back to find Democrats that support establishing democracies. Where are the current Democrats that support taking active measures to overthrow totalitarian regimes like Cuba, Syria, North Korea, or Iran?
I am letting everyone know that I don't believe the lies and fear-mongering being pushed on us by the government.
Yeah, I getting sick of all this "global warming" crap too, John?
posted on 03.22.2007 1:39 PM99
What about the war power's act? How about having congress vote on a declaration of war? Maybe that way the relevant facts can come out before we enter into the next "pre-emptive" war.
I keep hearing this idea that our pulling out of Vietnam after a decade and the deaths of 58,000 american soldiers died and several million Vietnamse caused the deaths of additional millions. This talking point is really making the rounds now with Sean Hannity and company. Maybe we should have stayed in Vietnam permanently?
Chris, what's your solution? Should we stay in Iraq forever? As soon as we leave, they will set up their own government-most likely an Islamic Republic.
Oh, and I thought we lived in a democratic republic, not an empire or monarchy. The president is the chief executive, we have separation of powers....and above all...THE PEOPLE ARE "THE DECIDERS"! I'd like to hear some "wingnut" tell me why this isn't true.
posted on 03.22.2007 1:43 PM100
I love America and democracy
I always find it amusing that folks on the left feel the need to say things like this. Is it because you feel your actions leave some doubt?
posted on 03.22.2007 1:46 PM101
Very clever, uncefgrer
posted on 03.22.2007 1:48 PM102
What about the war power's act? How about having congress vote on a declaration of war?
Congress did authorize the use of force in Iraq with "The Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002" (Wow, that kind of spells it out, don't it?). It passed the House on 10/10/2002 with a vote of 296-113 and the Senate one day later with a vote of 77-32. It was then signed into law by President Bush on 10/16/2002.
Maybe we should have stayed in Vietnam permanently?
Hmm, how long have we had troops stationed in Cuba, Germany, South Korea, and Japan? Heck, South Korea is still officially at war with the North.
THE PEOPLE ARE "THE DECIDERS"!
Well, not really. In a constitutional republic, the "PEOPLE" don't have a referendum on every action of government, they elect representatives that work within the constraints of the Constitution to make decisions on the direction the country should go. WRT the War in Iraq, the "PEOPLE" re-elected George Bush, in part because he campaigned to continue to pursue the war. In 2006, the "PEOPLE" elected a Democratic Congress, though I don't think it is at all clear that they elected this Congress with a mandate to pull out of Iraq. If it were, Congress would have no problem enacting resolutions to end the funding of the War in Iraq, thereby forcing our withdrawl. That they aren