News Uh-Oh, are the politicans fibbing again(RE:Iraq)?

[faust9]

i know who many of those people are, some of them are in the news right now (bolton). where is UBL, we just don't know. are you saying that it is bush's fault that we don't know where he is? didn't clintion have a good chance to kill binladen, why didn't he? it is not all bush's fault.
could the war on terror have been avoided had clinton killed UBL?
is that how you tell me that our war had no affect on terrorist attacks "how long has it been" so you say that we won't be attacked again until 2009? ok, let's throw caution to the wind until '09, and then we'll crack down on terrorism! we'll be ok.

You're building a strawman with Clinton now. Bush invaded Afghanistan to catch UBL. Where is UBL now.

Knowing who someone is and reading their published thoughts for the last 20 years then juxtaposing those thoughts with the current situation is are completely different. I can know who Cardinal Richelieu is by name but do I know who he was? Not without reading his writings I don't.

How was starting a war in Iraq on trumped up charges which has been breeding terrorist since the invasion prevent a terrorist attack? Have you missed the news reports where experts and Bush admin alike say we will probably be attacke din the fututre again anyway? The war in Iraq was not for the reasons you think it was for. It is a continuation of policies the hawks wanted to put into place in 1990 but Bush 1 saw the folly of such a plan of action.

You cannot bring democracy at the tip of a bayonet. To do so requires two A-bombs and or 7 to 15 years of occupation (no A-bomb was needed in the PI but the 15 years was). Pax American for the new century is a joke based on the random thoughts of career politicians who dabble in business or think tanks between republican administrations.

My opinion is pull out now or pull out later the same thing will occure.

 

[Daminc]

I've got a lot to say about this subject but I think it might be best if I introduce my friend and colleague Simon instead as he has done a lot more study than I so without further ado heeeerrrreeeees Simon...

Hi people, very interesting thread and topic...

To start with I would like to express my relief at hearing americans being fully aware of the situation, many Brits and Europeans are getting the impression of America being the greatest threat to the world since nazi Germany. And you have to ask yourselves why this is an increasing view of the U.S and it's people.

I have had plenty of experience of the UK military, I know things are done, and more importantly, how things should be done. We have an extremely professional armed forces who are a fierce foe when it comes down to it. On the other hand, we also know how civilians should be dealt with. Humanely.

Unfortunately, the US policy of just "shoot everything that moves" makes them very unpopular with the locals. Look at the difference between the north and the south of Iraq, the north is American controlled, the south primarily British. We get considerably less trouble in the south because we treat the population with respect.

I would feel uncomfortable to be anywhere near US forces, and I know for a fact that some of my friends that have recently worked closely with US troops in Iraq could not believe how unprofessional they were, with no respect for their enemies, civilians or anyone for that matter, "badly trained robot kids with guns" was an exact quote.

It's a shame, because the armed forces of a country generally reflect the people of their country... I think that this may answer the question of why the world is gradually turning against the US.

----------------------

Well that's my mate, (and that was diplomatic of him, believe me :) )

 

[1123581321]

did anyone see the news confrence about 5 minutes ago. you know, the one with bush and the iraqi primeminister? if you didn't, i trust that you will read a transcript.

i will no longer post in this thread, this discussion is going nowhere except to make people mad.

fibonacci

 

[faust9]

did anyone see the news confrence about 5 minutes ago. you know, the one with bush and the iraqi primeminister? if you didn't, i trust that you will read a transcript.

i will no longer post in this thread, this discussion is going nowhere except to make people mad.

fibonacci

This has no relevance to the conversation. Did you not read the article form the very first post where the General in charge in the ME contradicts the statements of Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld. Have you ever heard of an Ivory Tower?

[edit] So, we've come full circle---that being the lies eminating from the white house. Why do we allow the WH to tell us terrorism and insurgency are on the decline while the actual data refutes their position. Remember the retracted world terrorism report? Truth is a four letter word to the WH---Rove---beginning with the letter S and ending with the letter T.

 

[SOS2008]

The ridiculousness of the reasons put forth to justify an illegal invasion of a country never ceases to amaze me, and I can only remind myself that the number of people who still have this illogical thinking are decreasing in number--thank goodness.

If you look at history, even recent history, and other dictators that have existed, whether Marcos, Baby Doc, the Shah, these leaders remain in power as long as the U.S. supports them. When the U.S. no longer supports them, it is just a matter of time before they fall from power, and it doesn't even have to involve covert assassination (though those have occurred as well). In the case of Saddam, IMO we should have allowed more time to pass with more violations of UN resolutions until there was majority support from the world to take action (as a true coalition), in the meantime keeping Iraq contained with inspections and sanctions--Saddam wasn't a threat to his neighbors, and certainly not to the U.S.

As much as we may not like what goes on in other countries, international laws need to be maintained, for example sovereignty, to preserve world order (macro level) and no different than, for example, protection of individual rights to preserve democracy in our nation (micro level). We have debated repeatedly the root of terrorism (did you not read the words directly from OBL's mouth?) and that addressing these things is how terrorism would be solved--not by traditional war against nation states, which only fuels the fire of terrorism. It is appalling that there are those who still can't understand this.

As for neocon visions of spreading democracy and nation-building, this would need to be a separate thread, but IMO it is not a realistic vision. This is what is really at the basis of much of the support of the invasion in Iraq. Well, not only won't it work, but the majority of Americans do not support it, nor the majority of the world. So let's stop with this nonsense.

 

[Hurkyl]

You seem to have misinterpreted my point

As have you. (Actually, I suspect you know full well what my point is, but chose to ignore it. Anyways...)

The insurgency is NOT a group of Iraqis shooting at American invaders. It consists of Iraqis and foreigners. Americans are targets of the insurgency, but so are Iraqi security forces, the Iraqi government, Iraq's infrastructure, Iraqi civilians, ...

I did not bring up a Martian invasion because, as far as I know, a Martian invasion is not one of the things the insurgency is doing.


By the way, I notice you've now twice quoted the question "So exactly how were they to be freed?" without answering it.


P.S. your link doesn't work. Was vulgarity really necessary?

 

[Informal Logic]

...Have you missed the news reports where experts and Bush admin alike say we will probably be attacked in the fututre again anyway?

Here is where you hit the nail on the head, faust9. It is obvious that some posts are from young members, some who have little or no college education, and if they bother to watch the news, it is probably Fox News. Even so, there are so many books on the topic, there is no excuse for posting in an academic forum without doing proper research and providing evidence accordingly. Personally, I just skip past those posts, as these are a waste of my time.

...You cannot bring democracy at the tip of a bayonet. To do so requires two A-bombs and or 7 to 15 years of occupation (no A-bomb was needed in the PI but the 15 years was). Pax American for the new century is a joke based on the random thoughts of career politicians who dabble in business or think tanks between republican administrations.

Once again, I agree...with the exception that IMO larger bombs or longer occupation does not win hearts and minds. If the US pulled out of Iraq today, the process of self government could begin, with high probability of civil war. If the US pulls out in a few years from now, the odds are the situation would still deteriorate into civil war. So what is gained by staying longer? Nothing except more training of more terrorists.

...To start with I would like to express my relief at hearing americans being fully aware of the situation,

Maybe 48% of Americans have been fully aware of the situation, but you may not want to feel too much relief about the rest. It is difficult to tell if the recent polls reflect real understanding or the usual, shallow, short-term perceptions of most uninformed or misinformed Americans. If these people are just tired of news about insurgent attacks, rather than being disgusted with Bush and his administration for their lies and incompetence, nothing has been learned.

In the meantime, your comparison of British versus US troops has been made before (which thread I do not remember), and unfortunately it was not given much validity. If it is any consolation, I agree with you on this.

Members keep asking how the people of Iraq could be freed--too bad they do not ask if US foreign policy is or should be one of freeing oppressed people of the world, and if so, why is there no consistency in this regard? Also, alternatives to war have already been touched upon in this thread (and elsewhere). To advocate war as the answer to everything is disturbing, especially when not in self defense. In the case of Iraq, it is illegal to invade a country for purposes of regime change, which also has been stated above.

Now back to the OP, invading Iraq was a mistake. Bush and supporters need to acknowledge this. Of course if they do not, it will be for the best--as this will only cause the credibility gap to widen further. Perhaps we should hope for this so we can ensure regime change here at home.

 

[Art]

As have you. (Actually, I suspect you know full well what my point is, but chose to ignore it. Anyways...)
The insurgency is NOT a group of Iraqis shooting at American invaders. It consists of Iraqis and foreigners. Americans are targets of the insurgency, but so are Iraqi security forces, the Iraqi government, Iraq's infrastructure, Iraqi civilians, ...

The second half of your statement contradicts the first but I will try to answer it anyway. When they wantonly kill Iraqi civilians then I agree that is a terrorist act just as it is when one of the many separate insurgent groups wantonly kill civilians. nb I've already provided figs. for the ratio of Iraqi to foreign fighters twice. I suggest you look at the numbers.

By the way, I notice you've now twice quoted the question "So exactly how were they to be freed?" without answering it.

You are pre-supposing that the Iraqi people needed to be freed by the US military whilst I do not. The UN were handling it without the use of 500lb bombs. Given the choice of living for another year or two under Saddam or being blown to smithereens I suspect most of the thousands of free (but now dead) Iraqis would have chosen the former.
You are also pre-supposing that the purpose of this military adventure was to free the Iraqi people which makes you one of the very few who still believe that bs (oops another vulgarity)

ps The link was for a US Military Recruitment site.

 

[1123581321]

cut the bashing

i said earlier that i would refrain from posting, but i feel the urge.
there is no convinsing me that i am wrong, and there is no convinsing you that you are wrong. this is no longer a debate, this is a liberal/conservative/america/world/un/iraq/everything bashing mud-slinging contest. some info used is crap, and everyone is getting pissed off. this thread needs to become civil, or it needs to be closed. i said some stuff that made some people mad, and i am sorry to anyone that i offended. there, now let's quit acting like idiots. I ask, that if the crap continues, this thread be closed.

fibonacci

 

[faust9]

i said earlier that i would refrain from posting, but i feel the urge.
there is no convinsing me that i am wrong, and there is no convinsing you that you are wrong. this is no longer a debate, this is a liberal/conservative/america/world/un/iraq/everything bashing mud-slinging contest. some info used is crap, and everyone is getting pissed off. this thread needs to become civil, or it needs to be closed. i said some stuff that made some people mad, and i am sorry to anyone that i offended. there, now let's quit acting like idiots. I ask, that if the crap continues, this thread be closed.

fibonacci

What are you talking about?

Have you read any of the other threads in this forum? This is mild and civil debate. As of yet I havn't seen any refutation to my initial claim that the WH continuously misrepresent the Iraqi situation and is consistently called on those fibs by Generals, professionals, and Congressional Republicans along the the Democratic drone and the grow displeased voice of Americans.

Why is the WH allowd to skirt the truth and present half truths the way it does?

 

[Hurkyl]

You are pre-supposing that the Iraqi people needed to be freed by the US military whilst I do not.

Am not -- I'm expressing my irritation with people pretending that not-so-witty comments are a good substitute for answering a question.

You could have just said:

"The UN would have freed them in another two years without any violence"

in the first place, which is nice, because it answers the question, states your point, and doesn't belittle the discussion.

 

[BobG]

The ridiculousness of the reasons put forth to justify an illegal invasion of a country never ceases to amaze me, and I can only remind myself that the number of people who still have this illogical thinking are decreasing in number--thank goodness.

This decrease in the number of people supporting the war isn't a good thing - it's exactly the reason it's so important for the President to give honest reasons for going to war in the first place.

The link between Saddam and terrorism hasn't panned out. We haven't found weapons of mass destruction. We don't really know why Bush chose to invade Iraq.

Was it to spread democracy in the Middle East? That wasn't the reason he gave over two years ago. Why didn't he give it then? Because the reasons he gives today wouldn't have generated enough support? There are some who might feel that the reasons given back then aren't important - the important thing is that Bush drove America to do something that needed doing.

The problem with this idea is that if the reasons for starting the war aren't good enough to sway America, then those reasons won't be good enough to sustain the war, either. Rather than America feeling like it has to finish a job it started, people feel betrayed. They don't see the impact of leaving Iraq - they see casualties and insurgencies of a war that hasn't turned out to be the product the Bush administration advertised:

Vice President Cheney (March 16, 2003) said, "My belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators... I think it will go relatively quickly... in weeks rather than months."

Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld on Feb. 7, 2003 said, "It is unknowable how long that conflict will last. It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months."

Former Budget director Mitch Daniels (March 28, 2003) stated, "The United States is committed to helping Iraq recover from the conflict, but Iraq will not require sustained aid."

Here's the bigger problem with the idea that getting us to Iraq is worth it, even if you have to lie to do it. There's a lot of Congressmen who face re-election in 2006 - both Republican and Democratic. They can't (and probably shouldn't) stand against the opinions of the folks that elected them to represent their views. Congress is starting to put pressure on Bush to at least start considering an exit from Iraq.

The idea that we might leave Iraq in the middle of the job is a realistic possibility. Congress might make it through the 2006 election just by shifting pressure to Bush. If we're still in Iraq around 2008, the pressure to leave will be even higher. If we leave in the middle of the job and Iraq disintegrates into all out civil war in the middle of the Middle East, this invasion will be the biggest disaster and the biggest disgrace in American history.

Joseph Wilson (the ambassador who's wife was exposed as a CIA agent), appeared before Congress recently and knocked the current discussion on Iraq, saying they should have had that discussion before the war. He's right. But he also overlooks a couple of things. If our country were a true direct democracy, we'd never accomplish anything - we'd be locked in endless debates. The executive branch has the power it does in order to allow a rapid response to events. That ability doesn't exist if Congress debates every executive response in intricate detail - they have to put some faith in the President that the case he's making is an honest one or the country has no rapid response.

Here's the biggest reason the President has to state his case for war honestly, even if that risks having the war aborted before it ever gets started. Next event that occurs that demands a rapid response, especially if that event occurred within the next four years, will the country be able to make a rapid response or will we hesitate and debate the issue until disaster strikes again?

 

[Art]

Am not -- I'm expressing my irritation with people pretending that not-so-witty comments are a good substitute for answering a question.

You could have just said:

"The UN would have freed them in another two years without any violence"

in the first place, which is nice, because it answers the question, states your point, and doesn't belittle the discussion.

Personally I thought that pointing out the futility of liberating people by separating their soul from their body was an extremely effective way of highlighting the absurdity of the 'Iraqi freedom argument' but next time I'm constructing an argument remind me to consult you first Might I also suggest that perhaps instead of using this thread to vent your "irritation" it would be "nice" if you contributed your opinions on the subject matter with references and sources, objectively and without rancour, "which states your point, and doesn't belittle the discussion".

 

[Hurkyl]

The problem is that most of the freed Iraqis, in fact, did not have 500lb bombs dropped on their heads. The only thing your response shows absurd is an absurd reformulation of the original sentiment.

And I'm not just venting -- I have this hope that I can incite people to write better posts on these topics, or at the very least help people see the problems with much of what's written. (And I learn a thing or two sometimes as well. )

 

[Pengwuino]

Art, i just read through the whole thread and you did not provide any sources for how many nationalities are represented in Iraq and your "not-so-whitty" comments as someone described only show how you are simply dodging the issues and ignoring facts. The idea that this war is not worth it because a few thousand civilians died doesn't stand up to the fact that the country is a country of over 25 million citizens. You can also not logically contend that the US is wrong because a few thousand civilians died because before that, 300,000 civilians were murdered by Saddam's government.

Please stop contradicting yourself and/or lieing.

 

[Art]

Art, i just read through the whole thread and you did not provide any sources for how many nationalities are represented in Iraq

Did I claim to?

and your "not-so-whitty" comments as someone described only show how you are simply dodging the issues and ignoring facts.

What issues am I dodging or ignoring?? Please be specific

The idea that this war is not worth it because a few thousand civilians died doesn't stand up to the fact that the country is a country of over 25 million citizens.

What is your point? That there is enough of them that they can afford to lose a few thousand here and there?

You can also not logically contend that the US is wrong because a few thousand civilians died because before that, 300,000 civilians were murdered by Saddam's government.

Please provide references/sources for your fig of 300,000. And it certainly wasn't worth it for the thousands of dead civilians.

Please stop contradicting yourself and/or lieing.

Please be specific re contradictions and be careful with your accusations of lying.
p.s. Please use spellcheck. It is very difficult to decipher your posts at times and so I'm afraid if you can't be bothered to correct them then I will not bother to try reading them in future.

 

[Muadib]

We had a good discussion about this in http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=167329. Basically i think the jews benefit the most.

 

[alexandra]

The insurgency is NOT a group of Iraqis shooting at American invaders. It consists of Iraqis and foreigners. Americans are targets of the insurgency, but so are Iraqi security forces, the Iraqi government, Iraq's infrastructure, Iraqi civilians, ...

The invasion is NOT about a group of Americans shooting at Iraqi insurgents. It consists of Americans and foreigners (the 'coalition'). Iraqi insurgents are targets of the 'coalition', but so are Iraqi civilians, Iraq's infrastructure and Iraq's oil. The Iraqis' allies are simply helping them out, just as the Americans' allies are helping them out. It works both ways (much as some would like it not to). Iraqis have friends and allies too, you know.

 

[alexandra]

We had a good discussion about this in http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=167329. Basically i think the jews benefit the most.

We've also discussed this here, and I stated that from my reading and analysis of available information, I don't think that Israel is the prime beneficiary, although Israel undoubtedly plays a major role in the region generally and will probably land up benefiting from this conflict. It is not, as far as I can tell, the main reason why this conflict is happening.

 

[sid_galt]

The invasion is NOT about a group of Americans shooting at Iraqi insurgents. It consists of Americans and foreigners (the 'coalition'). Iraqi insurgents are targets of the 'coalition', but so are Iraqi civilians, Iraq's infrastructure and Iraq's oil. The Iraqis' allies are simply helping them out, just as the Americans' allies are helping them out. It works both ways (much as some would like it not to). Iraqis have friends and allies too, you know.

which consists of slaughtering the Iraqis? Wonderful!

 

[alexandra]

which consists of slaughtering the Iraqis? Wonderful!

sid_galt, this is not a good counterargument to my original counterargument to Hurkyl. Nevertheless, here is my response to what you write - this is what it boils down to: innocent Iraqi civilians - children, women, and men who are NOT at all guilty of anything - are being slaughtered by all sorts of groups now. These are the effects of 'pre-emptive wars to effect regime change' (or whatever the reason is *cough*oil*cough* for this disaster).

What the heck is a 'pre-emptive war' anyway? How ridiculous. A war to prevent a war? It doesn't even make logical sense read as an English sentence. I cannot believe so many people support this slaughter and killing, don't question it in any way. This attitude is so uncivilised, so barbaric - how on Earth can one justify these things at this supposedly 'enlightened' stage of 'civilisation'? This is barbarous. It's sickening that people not only condone this by being silent, but actively and openly support it. Well, go for it - support them while they kill, support them while they destroy the whole world. Let's applaud these great, heroic deeds.

Oh, and by the way - enjoy your oil - just remember at what cost you are getting it... Not, by the way, that the oil is yours - the most astounding thing about all this is that only a few already obscenely rich people - parasites - benefit from this; most people, in one way or another, have to pay a heavy price: tax dollars and lives to finance the oil profits - and all of it done on the basis of lies that are obvious for anyone prepared to just read the available information to see.

 

[Hurkyl]

my original counterargument

I didn't see anything in your "counterargument" that opposes my assertions that the insurgency is a lot more than Iraqis shooting at American invaders.

Whether the insurgents are blowing up Iraqi civilians to frighten them away from the temptations offered by the coalition is a different question all together.

 

[quetzalcoatl9]

What the heck is a 'pre-emptive war' anyway? How ridiculous. A war to prevent a war? It doesn't even make logical sense read as an English sentence. I cannot believe so many people support this slaughter and killing, don't question it in any way. This attitude is so uncivilised, so barbaric - how on Earth can one justify these things at this supposedly 'enlightened' stage of 'civilisation'? This is barbarous. It's sickening that people not only condone this by being silent, but actively and openly support it. Well, go for it - support them while they kill, support them while they destroy the whole world. Let's applaud these great, heroic deeds.

Actually the term "preemptive war" was not coined by the Bush administration - it goes all the way back to Sun Tzu. Here is wikipedia's definition:

"A preemptive attack (or preemptive war) is waged in an attempt to repel or defeat an imminent offensive or invasion, or to gain a strategic advantage in an impending (usually unavoidable) war. Preemptive war is often confused with the term preventive war. While the latter is generally considered to violate international law, and to fall short of the requirements of a just war, preemptive wars are more often argued to be justified or justifiable.

The intention with a preemptive strike is to gain the advantage of initiative and to harm the enemy at a moment of minimal protection, for instance while vulnerable during transport or mobilization."

Oh, and by the way - enjoy your oil - just remember at what cost you are getting it... Not, by the way, that the oil is yours - the most astounding thing about all this is that only a few already obscenely rich people - parasites - benefit from this; most people, in one way or another, have to pay a heavy price: tax dollars and lives to finance the oil profits - and all of it done on the basis of lies that are obvious for anyone prepared to just read the available information to see.

i couldn't agree more that oil plays a major role in this conflict. the answer to this is to develop alternative energy technology to the point of practicality. until this happens, however, the sad reality is that losing the world's major source of oil would cripple everyone (not just the US) and so it would be naive to assume that security of that resource being threatened would not be taken seriously.

 

[Muaddib]

25 million people freed? Don't you think this could have be done without paying such a high price, including many people who have died? Did we preserve freedom for Americans? No--that means we are not defending our country. And we won't win anything by shoving our beliefs down people's throats.

Some people keep saying that there was no reason for us to have gone to war in Iraq. But even one of the governments that was against the war in Iraq gave us reasons for years to oust Saddam, and make a regime change.

MOSCOW, Russia (CNN) -- Russian intelligence services warned Washington several times that Saddam Hussein's regime planned terrorist attacks against the United States, President Vladimir Putin has said.

The warnings were provided after September 11, 2001 and before the start of the Iraqi war, Putin said Friday.

The planned attacks were targeted both inside and outside the United States, said Putin, who made the remarks during a visit to Kazakhstan.

However, Putin said there was no evidence that Saddam's regime was involved in any terrorist attacks.

"I can confirm that after the events of September 11, 2001, and up to the military operation in Iraq, Russian special services and Russian intelligence several times received ... information that official organs of Saddam's regime were preparing terrorist acts on the territory of the United States and beyond its borders, at U.S. military and civilian locations," Putin said.

Excerpted from.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/06/18/russia.warning/

Not only that, evidence that the authorities from Spain found linked one of the terrorists who planned the attacks of 9/11 in Spain to the Iraqi embassy. He had been invited to a party in Spain by the Iraqi embassy.

Among the many pieces of evidence that points to the fact that Saddam had ties with Al Qaeda, here is a link to a site which gives an overview to much of that evidence.
http://cshink.com/iraq_al-qaeda_connection.htm

Saddam was breaking the UN sanction agreements. His forces fired upon the coalition in Kuwait at the beginning of this war, shooting scuds and Al Samoud missiles which were directly in breach of the UN sanctions as the Al Samoud could travel a lot farther than the 93 miles the missiles were supposed to fly, and the scuds were completely banned from Iraq. Saddam's forces even opened fire against US and Brittish aircraft before the war as they were enforcing the no-fly zone in northern Iraq so that Saddam wouldn't continue murdering kurds by chemical attacks. This alone was a declaration of war.

As we can see, Saddam was an imminent threat to the US, he was at least trying to revive his wmd programs, if those weapons weren't moved as he had more than enough time to do so, and he had plans on attacking the US with terrorist attacks.

All wars are hell, but this one was necessary.

 

[Mercator]

All wars are hell, but this one was necessary.

The incessant and fierce resistance for more than two years now, is enough to refute all your arguments.

 

[Muaddib]

The incessant and fierce resistance for more than two years now, is enough to refute all your arguments.

Why exactly is that? We are making sure, or trying to, to take the battle outside of the US. We have seen throughout the years how Islamic terrorists have been trying, and succeded, in bringing their war to the United States, and other countries such as Spain. Islamic extremists have even trying to bring this same war of theirs to countries such as France and Germany, even though both these countries were against the war in Iraq.

BTW, how exactly does the "incessant and fierce resistance" refutes the evidence that Saddam was going to carry terrorist attacks in the US, and that he was in direct violation of the agreements set forth by the UN?

 

[vanesch]

Not only that, evidence that the authorities from Spain found linked one of the terrorists who planned the attacks of 9/11 in Spain to the Iraqi embassy. He had been invited to a party in Spain by the Iraqi embassy.

So if tomorrow I succeed in having myself invited to a party of the German embassy in Paris, and go and blow up, say a few weeks later, the Pentagon, this is a reason for a war on Germany ??

 

[alexandra]

Actually the term "preemptive war" was not coined by the Bush administration - it goes all the way back to Sun Tzu. Here is wikipedia's definition:

"A preemptive attack (or preemptive war) is waged in an attempt to repel or defeat an imminent offensive or invasion, or to gain a strategic advantage in an impending (usually unavoidable) war. Preemptive war is often confused with the term preventive war. While the latter is generally considered to violate international law, and to fall short of the requirements of a just war, preemptive wars are more often argued to be justified or justifiable.

The intention with a preemptive strike is to gain the advantage of initiative and to harm the enemy at a moment of minimal protection, for instance while vulnerable during transport or mobilization."

This is fine, as definitions go. However, just because a concept is defined does not mean one has to support its essence. I think this 'pre-emptive war' actually caused a conflict situation that would otherwise not have existed. It was pure, plain bullying, based on what everyone knew at the time (and has now been proved) to be lies. That, in any case, is how the situation is perceived by many.

i couldn't agree more that oil plays a major role in this conflict. the answer to this is to develop alternative energy technology to the point of practicality. until this happens, however, the sad reality is that losing the world's major source of oil would cripple everyone (not just the US) and so it would be naive to assume that security of that resource being threatened would not be taken seriously.

I am not naive, which is precisely why I continue to insist that as long as capitalism remains (a system based on greed and lack of caring for one's fellow human beings and the environment in general) we will live in continuously escalating crisis situations - more conflicts, environmental degradation to the point of no return, etc. Just like Orwell predicted in '1984' - he was just a few years off in his predictions, but it's certainly happening now. Actually, I'm wrong there - it's been '1984' for ages, but it's getting really bad now. One thing that has definitely changed over the past three years is that Big Brother is well and truly here now.

 

[alexandra]

The link between Saddam and terrorism hasn't panned out. We haven't found weapons of mass destruction. We don't really know why Bush chose to invade Iraq.

Many people seem to strongly suspect that the reason was access to and control of oil (resources) and strategic reasons (control of the Middle East). There seems to be a lot of evidence pointing to those motivations.

There are some who might feel that the reasons given back then aren't important - the important thing is that Bush drove America to do something that needed doing.

Why? Why did it need doing? How would the US or the UK feel if some other leader decided that the best thing they could do for US/UK people was invade their country, change their 'regime', destroy their government and their infrastructure, and steal their resources?

The idea that we might leave Iraq in the middle of the job is a realistic possibility. Congress might make it through the 2006 election just by shifting pressure to Bush. If we're still in Iraq around 2008, the pressure to leave will be even higher. If we leave in the middle of the job and Iraq disintegrates into all out civil war in the middle of the Middle East, this invasion will be the biggest disaster and the biggest disgrace in American history.

There is no avoiding the disaster and disgrace, though - it has already happened.

Joseph Wilson (the ambassador who's wife was exposed as a CIA agent), appeared before Congress recently and knocked the current discussion on Iraq, saying they should have had that discussion before the war. He's right. But he also overlooks a couple of things. If our country were a true direct democracy, we'd never accomplish anything - we'd be locked in endless debates. The executive branch has the power it does in order to allow a rapid response to events. That ability doesn't exist if Congress debates every executive response in intricate detail - they have to put some faith in the President that the case he's making is an honest one or the country has no rapid response.

But war is a very serious matter - perhaps exceptions should be made for such serious decisions; perhaps there should be more checks and balances, and ordinary people should have more say about these devastating decisions made in their names?

Here's the biggest reason the President has to state his case for war honestly, even if that risks having the war aborted before it ever gets started. Next event that occurs that demands a rapid response, especially if that event occurred within the next four years, will the country be able to make a rapid response or will we hesitate and debate the issue until disaster strikes again?

You speak as if there is a link between 'disaster' (are you referring to 9/11?) and Iraq. It has now been proven, beyond the shadow of a doubt (despite Mr Bush trying to link the two again in his most recent speech) that there is absolutely no link between Iraq and that event. The first person to televise condolences to the American people for what happened was Saddam Hussein. I (like most people) watched the events of 9/11 24 hours per day, and I saw this. And I figured it out right then, as I watched Iraq's president give his condolences: he knew that this was going to be used to achieve US foreign policy objectives to get rid of him. It was obvious, from the start, what was going to happen.

 

[2CentsWorth]

Some people keep saying that there was no reason for us to have gone to war in Iraq. But even one of the governments that was against the war in Iraq gave us reasons for years to oust Saddam, and make a regime change.

...All wars are hell, but this one was necessary.

The term Just War has been mentioned so many times, yet as usual it is ignored. If a person is being threatened by another person, what can the police do? They can't do anything until a crime is actually committed.

Aside from this analogy, good, solid evidence that Saddam was plotting terrorist acts has never been found. Once again the differences between Bin Laden's agenda and Saddam's has been mentioned many times, yet ignored as well. Saddam was only interested in maintaining his power and wealth. He had no ideological motives to invest resources in terrorist activities -- And why would he bring the wrath of the US down on himself even harder? What would he have to gain? It makes no sense. The most he would have done would be to sell materials to terrorists for profit, but why should terrorists bother when such things can be obtained more easily from elsewhere (Pakistan), or better yet stolen from the USSR? Also, Bin Laden and most of the Arab world have never cared for Saddam, who is viewed as a religious pretender.

No, this war was NOT necessary, and would only be necessary if the US was directly attacked by Iraq--and clearly we were not. Stop listening to the propaganda.