Poll: Has the Iraq war affected Bush's credibility?

[DaiShan]

Hell yeah I would question him, but the vast majority of Americans would not. So long as he drops a few buzz words like "axis of evil" "evil dictator" "oppressed people" "Weapons of Mass destruction" and who can forget "harboring terrorists" If he dropped any of those into a speech on Iran, he would have the sheep that are responsible for his 60% approval rating ready to nuke Iran. Honestly, do these people just not care about being hoodwinked, or are they just that ignorant?

 

[DaiShan]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Dr Smooth
I voted "No, Bush's credibility has not changed" because I did not believe the reasons he gave for the war in the first place.

I voted the same. His Administration has taken some hits over this Iraq thing but it has also gained because of it too. Now the world knows that when we say we are going to do something unless X happens- we mean it(regardless of it being right or wrong).

CkG

/me crosses fingers "please be joking, please please please only be joking" I would not even want to delve into the implications of that statement otherwise. I have neither the time, nor the stomach for it today.

 

[DaiShan]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Dr Smooth
I voted "No, Bush's credibility has not changed" because I did not believe the reasons he gave for the war in the first place.

I voted the same. His Administration has taken some hits over this Iraq thing but it has also gained because of it too. Now the world knows that when we say we are going to do something unless X happens- we mean it(regardless of it being right or wrong).

CkG

no wonder most people in the world consider the US the biggest threat now

Yeah cuz we all know the world loves people who never follow through with what they say they will do.

The US isn't a threat if you don't mess with them or their interests.

CkG

Oh god he wasn't kidding.
/me bangs head against wall repeatedly.

*Sigh* here goes: first off you justify the actions of the administration by the very fact that they occurred, you cannot use their occurrence as justification. Secondly your premise of US hegemony (don't get it twisted, that is your premise, whether you know what that is or not) lacks any qualifying criterion to support it. Without support your argument fails. Now assuming that you actually made a valid argument (you didn't) I will go from there. I'll try to take it slow with you, your short sightedness has already determined the pace which I must take, don't let me lose you here: First off I will link the United States of your statement to the third reich of Germany. The world learned that they too would follow through with their threats right or wrong, they ruthlessly persecuted the Jews, and occupied land that did not belong to them. Sound familiar? We are occupying Iraq, illigitmately, the people of iraq view us as foreign invaders, and since we are attempting to force democracy on them, we are persecuting them. Your argument is particularly dangerous because you Offer US hegemony as your premise, but do not base it off the assumption that Hegemony is key for peace and that the hegemony will always be correct as it is essential to peace. You state that whether the reasons are justified or not, the actions are. With this war, you seek to establish a dangerous precedent of US demands, and haphazard use of force. We talk about peace in the middle east? How do you think there can be peace when a foreign army is occupying their land? We talk about not destabilizing the region, with violence yet we launch the largest millitary offensive since vietnam into iraq. I will now move on to your second statement that we are not a threat so long as you do as we say. If I am correct here you are assuming that the only way we could be a threat to someone is if they dared to disagree. If I am correct here, does this idea not run counter-current to one of the main premises this country was founded on? The freedom and right to say what you like, to speak against the policies of the government or its officials without fear of retribution? If I am correct in this assumption then you seek to abridge these rights to further an agenda that is unknown to me. Benjamin Franklin once said that "Those that would give up an essential liberty for a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety" With this statement by one of our founding fathers, how can you deny such an essential liberty as freedom of speech to those who would speak against our policy? The most patriotic use of your right to free speech is to speak against the government, I say this because you do not have to fear retribution, why then should countries have to fear retribution, such as a voluntary boycott of french goods over their statements? Your argument further seems to support the idea that force is justified when dealing with those that speak against us. This is a terribly short-sighted statement, and a dangerous precedent to set. It sets the stage for a new axis Vs. allies. It pits the hegemon US and its allies (australia, Great Britain, and other small countries) against the rest of the world, however as Albert Einstein once said "I know not with what world war 3 will be fought but world war 4 will be fought with sticks and stones" By following your premise we set the stage for global destruction. The link is right there in front of you, refute it if you want, but please try to make it coherent, I have already wasted enough time on you.

 

[DaiShan]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Dr Smooth
I voted "No, Bush's credibility has not changed" because I did not believe the reasons he gave for the war in the first place.

I voted the same. His Administration has taken some hits over this Iraq thing but it has also gained because of it too. Now the world knows that when we say we are going to do something unless X happens- we mean it(regardless of it being right or wrong).

CkG

no wonder most people in the world consider the US the biggest threat now

Yeah cuz we all know the world loves people who never follow through with what they say they will do.

The US isn't a threat if you don't mess with them or their interests.

CkG

so basicly the rule is "be our bitches or else":disgust:

You fail to understand what I said and meant. Bush told Saddam to give it up (SH didn't), Bush told Saddam that he needed to turn himself in or we were coming in(SH didn't), then Bush told him to get out cuz we're coming in(S.H didn't) So Bush FOLLWED THROUGH WITH HIS Promise and we went in. You see wether or not you like it- Bush did what he promised to do, which is more than I can say for alot of other leaders.

So... now people know that when Bush says he is going to do something he isn't just bluffing

This isn't a "be my bitch" type of thing - this is a "we agreed on terms and you broke em, now your screwed" thing

CkG

it isn't so much that we didn't understand what you were saying, we were just so appalled that we didn't want to think of the full implications. By your reasoning the school yard bully who says give me your lunch money, is justified in knocking the crap out of the kid with glasses when he refuses. The problem I see with that (beyond the obvious abuse of might) is that one day that four-eyed computer nerd grows up to be bill gates, someone who has the money to have the bullied killed. So beyond the obvious moral and ethical dillemas imposed by your argument of justification, your short-sightedness seems to overlook ibn khaldouns theory of the cyclical nature of empires, eventually all empires fall, and its just a matter of time before old debts are called up for payment...

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Gaard
CADkindaGUY - <<So are you going to say that SH didn't have WMD? You surely have to think that if you say that Bush's "proof" statement is false.>>

Why does the fact that one believes Bush's "proof" statement to be false mean that one believe's SH didn't have WMD?


CADkindaGUY - <<Care to point out a country that didn't believe the above?>>

Care to let everyone know whether you are aware that 'believing' isn't the same as 'knowing'?


CADkindaGUY - <<Exactly - where are the weapons that EVERYONE said they knew he had?>>

This is a blatant lie. If you think otherwise, show me.


CADkindaGUY - <<I didn't need WMD to justify taking Saddam out.>>

Just out of curiousity CAD, do you think Bush would've garnered enough support for this war if he had used any other excuse besides WMD as the primary reason?

Gaard, in the future it is good etiquette to answer questions directly and not with another question.
1. Maybe they don't
2. Yes I am aware. Show me a country that said, believed, or knew Saddam absolutely didn't have WMD.
3. No it isn't. Show me a country that said, believed, or knew Saddam absolutely didn't have WMD.
4. Maybe - but like I said, it doesn't matter to me. I wanted to see Saddam gone a long time ago.

CkG

 

[DaiShan]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Dr Smooth
I voted "No, Bush's credibility has not changed" because I did not believe the reasons he gave for the war in the first place.

I voted the same. His Administration has taken some hits over this Iraq thing but it has also gained because of it too. Now the world knows that when we say we are going to do something unless X happens- we mean it(regardless of it being right or wrong).

CkG

Well, I'll agree with half your statement, "Now the world knows that when we say we are going to do something...", that part is true. However, the rest of it is untrue, there was nothing SH could have done, this is the reason Bush rushed into war against the UN's wishes.

SH could have shown proof that he destroyed the WMD(that EVERYONE SAYS HE HAD), SH could have left the country, SH could have NOT kicked the inspectors out way back when, etc....coulda shoulda woulda. To say that there "was nothing SH could have done" to prevent the attack is asinine. Also, there was no "rush" to war. How many months were we building up troops in the area? Oh yeah - 14+!!!

Saddam agreed to cease-fire terms over 12 years ago and he didn't comply. NO ONE claims he was in compliance with those terms, but yet you people sit here and condemn Bush. Blame the problem- not the enforcer.

The truth is, that Saddam could have prevented not only THIS invasion, but the attack in 1998, and also 12+ years of sanctions, if he just would have held up his end of the bargain.

But yeah, it's ALL GWB's fault.

CkG

You talk about asinine theories LOL Saddam did show proof, however we had the smoking gun (trucks sometimes showed up at these places before inspectors, which obviously means they were carting off nuclear weapons!) Why should saddam leave the country? If saddam asked bush to leave the country should he? No, don't be ridiculous, you are over simplifying the issue, and your arguments are laden with fallacies. The inspectors said he was clean, we said he wasn't, we can't prove he wasn't clean. And to say that we tried to avert war because it took 14 months to build up troops in the region is ridiculous, it took that long to get everything worked out, remember turkey? We wanted to wait to be able to attack from the north. There is no proof that saddam did not uphold his end of the bargain as you so put it. By your reasoning any time we tell a world leader to leave power, if they do not, we should attack and remove them, that policy furthers your short-sighted policy making streak, and brings it to a shockingly more dangerous level.

 

[DaiShan]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: sandorski

Perhaps SH did not have "proof", it appears that he certainly didn't have WMD.

Yes, it is GWB's fault. He said he had "proof" of SH WMD, now he doesn't. He bashed and belittled France, Blix, and the "Unwilling" for not coming along on the fight against WMD, now he stands smirking and coming up with a new excuse every week(much like the weekly reason for War prior to the invasion)for not finding anything.

So the fact that SH didn't have proof means we blame Bush? I thought that the UN laid out specific terms for compliance? Oh well, I guess you don't believe in accountability then if you think SH should have gotten a pass.

So are you going to say that SH didn't have WMD? You surely have to think that if you say that Bush's "proof" statement is false. Maybe he didn't have them when we attacked, but the question that still remains unanswered by SADDAM is where did they go? He said he had them, the UN said he had them, the rest of the world said that he had them, hell - he even USED them.
Saddam had WMD = TRUE.
The UN told Saddam to get rid of them and show proof = TRUE
Saddam didn't meet said requirements agreed upon by the UN and himself. = TRUE

Care to point out a country that didn't believe the above?

Yeah - you are right - it is ALL Bush's fault

The only thing Bush did was remove Saddam's ass from power, WMD was not a "new" issue. Did we need to go in when we did? Maybe, maybe not - but how long and how many chances to fully comply does Saddam get?

CkG

There you go again - you do not establish clear links - you just thow out the rhetoric that the administration is feeding you. Yes the Un laid out terms for compliance, the UN did not see the need to attack iraq, the us felt the need to arbitrarily enforce the UN's decisions. Yes I believe in accountability, but accountability is a double edged sword, just as saddam had to be accountable for his actions so too much this administration be accountable for theirs. Anty up. You are totally skewing the facts which is not just ludicrous it is abusive. Saddam gave 12000 pages showing he did not have wmd, the UN said that they couldn't find any wmd, the only wmd saddam used before was the chemical weapons, which was a terrible terrible act, however he seems to have disarmed, yet you with your extensive foreign intelligence (albeit along with the administration) seem to know more about the Un weapons inspectors jobs than they do. Take the time to examine the rhetoric that they are feeding you don't just spew it back, you sound like a broken record (scratched cd for those that don't know )

 

[DaiShan]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: sandorski

Perhaps SH did not have "proof", it appears that he certainly didn't have WMD.

Yes, it is GWB's fault. He said he had "proof" of SH WMD, now he doesn't. He bashed and belittled France, Blix, and the "Unwilling" for not coming along on the fight against WMD, now he stands smirking and coming up with a new excuse every week(much like the weekly reason for War prior to the invasion)for not finding anything.

So the fact that SH didn't have proof means we blame Bush? I thought that the UN laid out specific terms for compliance? Oh well, I guess you don't believe in accountability then if you think SH should have gotten a pass.

So are you going to say that SH didn't have WMD? You surely have to think that if you say that Bush's "proof" statement is false. Maybe he didn't have them when we attacked, but the question that still remains unanswered by SADDAM is where did they go? He said he had them, the UN said he had them, the rest of the world said that he had them, hell - he even USED them.
Saddam had WMD = TRUE.
The UN told Saddam to get rid of them and show proof = TRUE
Saddam didn't meet said requirements agreed upon by the UN and himself. = TRUE

Care to point out a country that didn't believe the above?

Yeah - you are right - it is ALL Bush's fault

The only thing Bush did was remove Saddam's ass from power, WMD was not a "new" issue. Did we need to go in when we did? Maybe, maybe not - but how long and how many chances to fully comply does Saddam get?

CkG

Where are the weapons and evidence Bush said he had before the war? Where are THEY?

Exactly - where are the weapons that EVERYONE said they knew he had? If you are going to just blame Bush for this then you are just ignorant or blindly partisan. Where are the weapons and evidence that Clinton used as his reasoning in 1998? Oh, I forgot - Bill gets a pass because of the "right-wing conspiracy" And I also ask - does everyone who gave Bush permission to use force lose credibility too? They were spouting the same things that Bush was Need I dig up the links to what Byrd, Clinton(hillary), and etc said?

CkG

Straw man fallacy and hasty generalization. Everone said that they knew he had it? I don't think so, look at the United Nations security council for proof, in fact the majority of the nations seemed to think he did not and was not a threat and not in breach of their resolution which would be a call for war.

 

[Moonbeam]

Bowfinger: I think this may be why we can't see eye-to-eye on this war. In my mind, invading another country is an absolute last resort, after every other option is exhausted. It is only justified in response to a real, significant, and imminent danger to the U.S. or its allies. It is NOT to be used as a negotiating tactic or a lever to persuade others. It is NOT a legitimate tool for empire-building or political gain. It must NOT be based on hearsay or convenience or wishful thinking. It certainly isn't an appropriate response to missing paperwork.

In my opinion, there was no urgency that demanded we invade Iraq. So what if Iraq wasn't complying with 1441 as well as we wanted? So what if we already gave Iraq 12 years to comply? So what if Iraq agreed to these terms (at gunpoint, I might add)? While Iraq's defiance may have been a threat to our egos and our patience, it certainly wasn't a threat to our safety. As the world's greatest democracy and its last remaining superpower, we have a higher responsibility to be responsible and temperate in our dealings with the world. We should be too strong and too noble to overreact to a pipsqueak nuisance like 2003 Iraq.

The most charitable interpretation of Bush's rush to invade Iraq is that his good sense was outgunned by his impatience and his swaggering, shoot-from-the-hip, cowboy mentality. A less favorable view is that his invasion was a cynical, immoral attempt to further his personal and political agenda: distract from his domestic performance, looming financial scandals, and failure to find Osama bin Laden; establish a U.S. footprint in the Middle East; control Iraqi oil, undermining OPEC and benefiting his oil buddies in the process; improve his image in preparation for the 2004 election; establish a 1984-style perpetual state of war; maybe even extract revenge on the guy who wronged his daddy.

Bush had dozens of possible reasons for invading Iraq; we'll likely never know which of them topped his list. In my opinion, none justifies launching a war and killing and maiming thousands of innocent people. None of these justifies burying this country with up to half a trillion dollars of additional debt. Lacking a clear and immediate danger from Iraq, we should have continued the policies of inspections and containment even though it was frustrating and irritating and even a little embarrassing to be jerked around by a scumbag like Saddam Hussein. We're supposed to be big enough to take it.

If I'm reading you right, CkG, you set the bar a little lower on acceptable criteria for war. That's your right, but it means we'll never agree on the justness of Bush's invasion of Iraq.
-------------------------------
That was one hell of a fine post.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: DaiShan

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: sandorski

Perhaps SH did not have "proof", it appears that he certainly didn't have WMD.

Yes, it is GWB's fault. He said he had "proof" of SH WMD, now he doesn't. He bashed and belittled France, Blix, and the "Unwilling" for not coming along on the fight against WMD, now he stands smirking and coming up with a new excuse every week(much like the weekly reason for War prior to the invasion)for not finding anything.

So the fact that SH didn't have proof means we blame Bush? I thought that the UN laid out specific terms for compliance? Oh well, I guess you don't believe in accountability then if you think SH should have gotten a pass.

So are you going to say that SH didn't have WMD? You surely have to think that if you say that Bush's "proof" statement is false. Maybe he didn't have them when we attacked, but the question that still remains unanswered by SADDAM is where did they go? He said he had them, the UN said he had them, the rest of the world said that he had them, hell - he even USED them.
Saddam had WMD = TRUE.
The UN told Saddam to get rid of them and show proof = TRUE
Saddam didn't meet said requirements agreed upon by the UN and himself. = TRUE

Care to point out a country that didn't believe the above?

Yeah - you are right - it is ALL Bush's fault

The only thing Bush did was remove Saddam's ass from power, WMD was not a "new" issue. Did we need to go in when we did? Maybe, maybe not - but how long and how many chances to fully comply does Saddam get?

CkG

Where are the weapons and evidence Bush said he had before the war? Where are THEY?

Exactly - where are the weapons that EVERYONE said they knew he had? If you are going to just blame Bush for this then you are just ignorant or blindly partisan. Where are the weapons and evidence that Clinton used as his reasoning in 1998? Oh, I forgot - Bill gets a pass because of the "right-wing conspiracy" And I also ask - does everyone who gave Bush permission to use force lose credibility too? They were spouting the same things that Bush was Need I dig up the links to what Byrd, Clinton(hillary), and etc said?

CkG

Straw man fallacy and hasty generalization. Everone said that they knew he had it? I don't think so, look at the United Nations security council for proof, in fact the majority of the nations seemed to think he did not and was not a threat and not in breach of their resolution which would be a call for war.

Mr. Hasty - Read that quote again I was talking about the US people who said they "knew" You know...Clinton, Byrd, etc.

Show me a country that said, believed, or knew Saddam absolutely didn't have WMD then we'll talk.

CkG

 

[DaiShan]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: DaiShan

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: sandorski

Perhaps SH did not have "proof", it appears that he certainly didn't have WMD.

Yes, it is GWB's fault. He said he had "proof" of SH WMD, now he doesn't. He bashed and belittled France, Blix, and the "Unwilling" for not coming along on the fight against WMD, now he stands smirking and coming up with a new excuse every week(much like the weekly reason for War prior to the invasion)for not finding anything.

So the fact that SH didn't have proof means we blame Bush? I thought that the UN laid out specific terms for compliance? Oh well, I guess you don't believe in accountability then if you think SH should have gotten a pass.

So are you going to say that SH didn't have WMD? You surely have to think that if you say that Bush's "proof" statement is false. Maybe he didn't have them when we attacked, but the question that still remains unanswered by SADDAM is where did they go? He said he had them, the UN said he had them, the rest of the world said that he had them, hell - he even USED them.
Saddam had WMD = TRUE.
The UN told Saddam to get rid of them and show proof = TRUE
Saddam didn't meet said requirements agreed upon by the UN and himself. = TRUE

Care to point out a country that didn't believe the above?

Yeah - you are right - it is ALL Bush's fault

The only thing Bush did was remove Saddam's ass from power, WMD was not a "new" issue. Did we need to go in when we did? Maybe, maybe not - but how long and how many chances to fully comply does Saddam get?

CkG

Where are the weapons and evidence Bush said he had before the war? Where are THEY?

Exactly - where are the weapons that EVERYONE said they knew he had? If you are going to just blame Bush for this then you are just ignorant or blindly partisan. Where are the weapons and evidence that Clinton used as his reasoning in 1998? Oh, I forgot - Bill gets a pass because of the "right-wing conspiracy" And I also ask - does everyone who gave Bush permission to use force lose credibility too? They were spouting the same things that Bush was Need I dig up the links to what Byrd, Clinton(hillary), and etc said?

CkG

Straw man fallacy and hasty generalization. Everone said that they knew he had it? I don't think so, look at the United Nations security council for proof, in fact the majority of the nations seemed to think he did not and was not a threat and not in breach of their resolution which would be a call for war.

Mr. Hasty - Read that quote again I was talking about the US people who said they "knew" You know...Clinton, Byrd, etc.

Show me a country that said, believed, or knew Saddam absolutely didn't have WMD then we'll talk.

CkG

You twisted it again first off you never mentioned the American people, second off the average American does not run the country, that is why we have a representative form of government and not a direct democracy. Bush and his administration are in charge of running the country. Now onto your contention that since no country could prove that saddam did not have WMD that is justification for millitary force. This shoot first ask questions later mentality is a prevailing theme among your posts in this thread. It is clear to me, from your posts, that you feel that justified or not, millitary force ought to be the foremost tool in negotiations. While I say diplomacy through words, and further down the line sanctions ought to be paramount in international relations. I believe it was Robert E. Lee who once said "it is good that war is hell, lest we grow too fond of it" I agree with this statement and would like to offer it as a justifying criterion for my premise of war as a last resort. Also - since you seem to ascribe to the idea of a pre-emptive strike theory, you must also feel that North Korea is justified in its declaration of its right to a pre-emptive strike against the United States. It's the all or none theory, basically you cannot have either or, you must have both. You cannot simply say we are justified because we are stronger, that is no way to quantify right.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: DaiShan

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: DaiShan

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: sandorski

Perhaps SH did not have "proof", it appears that he certainly didn't have WMD.

Yes, it is GWB's fault. He said he had "proof" of SH WMD, now he doesn't. He bashed and belittled France, Blix, and the "Unwilling" for not coming along on the fight against WMD, now he stands smirking and coming up with a new excuse every week(much like the weekly reason for War prior to the invasion)for not finding anything.

So the fact that SH didn't have proof means we blame Bush? I thought that the UN laid out specific terms for compliance? Oh well, I guess you don't believe in accountability then if you think SH should have gotten a pass.

So are you going to say that SH didn't have WMD? You surely have to think that if you say that Bush's "proof" statement is false. Maybe he didn't have them when we attacked, but the question that still remains unanswered by SADDAM is where did they go? He said he had them, the UN said he had them, the rest of the world said that he had them, hell - he even USED them.
Saddam had WMD = TRUE.
The UN told Saddam to get rid of them and show proof = TRUE
Saddam didn't meet said requirements agreed upon by the UN and himself. = TRUE

Care to point out a country that didn't believe the above?

Yeah - you are right - it is ALL Bush's fault

The only thing Bush did was remove Saddam's ass from power, WMD was not a "new" issue. Did we need to go in when we did? Maybe, maybe not - but how long and how many chances to fully comply does Saddam get?

CkG

Where are the weapons and evidence Bush said he had before the war? Where are THEY?

Exactly - where are the weapons that EVERYONE said they knew he had? If you are going to just blame Bush for this then you are just ignorant or blindly partisan. Where are the weapons and evidence that Clinton used as his reasoning in 1998? Oh, I forgot - Bill gets a pass because of the "right-wing conspiracy" And I also ask - does everyone who gave Bush permission to use force lose credibility too? They were spouting the same things that Bush was Need I dig up the links to what Byrd, Clinton(hillary), and etc said?

CkG

Straw man fallacy and hasty generalization. Everone said that they knew he had it? I don't think so, look at the United Nations security council for proof, in fact the majority of the nations seemed to think he did not and was not a threat and not in breach of their resolution which would be a call for war.

Mr. Hasty - Read that quote again I was talking about the US people who said they "knew" You know...Clinton, Byrd, etc.

Show me a country that said, believed, or knew Saddam absolutely didn't have WMD then we'll talk.

CkG

You twisted it again first off you never mentioned the American people, second off the average American does not run the country, that is why we have a representative form of government and not a direct democracy. Bush and his administration are in charge of running the country. Now onto your contention that since no country could prove that saddam did not have WMD that is justification for millitary force. This shoot first ask questions later mentality is a prevailing theme among your posts in this thread. It is clear to me, from your posts, that you feel that justified or not, millitary force ought to be the foremost tool in negotiations. While I say diplomacy through words, and further down the line sanctions ought to be paramount in international relations. I believe it was Robert E. Lee who once said "it is good that war is hell, lest we grow too fond of it" I agree with this statement and would like to offer it as a justifying criterion for my premise of war as a last resort. Also - since you seem to ascribe to the idea of a pre-emptive strike theory, you must also feel that North Korea is justified in its declaration of its right to a pre-emptive strike against the United States. It's the all or none theory, basically you cannot have either or, you must have both. You cannot simply say we are justified because we are stronger, that is no way to quantify right.

Until you READ and UNDERSTAND what I posted you will think it is a "twist"

You are the one who is spinning this and pushing all the blame on Bush. Who gave Bush "permission" to attack? It wouldn't be those people I pointed out..(Hillary, Byrd, and etc)...would it?

I didn't say "no country could prove he didn't" , I said "Show me a country that said, believed, or knew Saddam absolutely didn't have WMD" No country, even now(to my knowledge) is claiming that Saddam didn't have WMD. Who is twisting?

Shoot first mentality? WTF are you smoking? I don't feel that the use of force should be the first option and we did in this case gave diplomacy 12+ years. Rush to war? 14month build up in the gulf? Rush to war? Buahahaha! Keep it up - this is funny - you know, they say laughter is healthy

"pre-emptive war"? Hardly If you read what I posted you would have seen that I wanted Saddam gone along time ago FOR NOT HONORING HIS END OF THE AGREEMENT! We stopped short of Kicking his ass in '91 because he said he would do X and X. He didn't - we should have then kicked his ass. The whole "pre-emptive" label is wrong in this situation IMO. We didn't start this thing with Saddam - but now we are finally putting an end to it.

Now if we went after NK without direct engagement from them then I might label that as "pre-emptive" especially if we did it just because they are after nukes. You see, NK and the US don't have a cease-fire agreement - all we have at the moment is a war of words. Would I support the overthrow of KJI by the US? Probably, but i don't think now is the right time to do so.

CkG

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: DaiShan

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: DaiShan

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: sandorski

Perhaps SH did not have "proof", it appears that he certainly didn't have WMD.

Yes, it is GWB's fault. He said he had "proof" of SH WMD, now he doesn't. He bashed and belittled France, Blix, and the "Unwilling" for not coming along on the fight against WMD, now he stands smirking and coming up with a new excuse every week(much like the weekly reason for War prior to the invasion)for not finding anything.

So the fact that SH didn't have proof means we blame Bush? I thought that the UN laid out specific terms for compliance? Oh well, I guess you don't believe in accountability then if you think SH should have gotten a pass.

So are you going to say that SH didn't have WMD? You surely have to think that if you say that Bush's "proof" statement is false. Maybe he didn't have them when we attacked, but the question that still remains unanswered by SADDAM is where did they go? He said he had them, the UN said he had them, the rest of the world said that he had them, hell - he even USED them.
Saddam had WMD = TRUE.
The UN told Saddam to get rid of them and show proof = TRUE
Saddam didn't meet said requirements agreed upon by the UN and himself. = TRUE

Care to point out a country that didn't believe the above?

Yeah - you are right - it is ALL Bush's fault

The only thing Bush did was remove Saddam's ass from power, WMD was not a "new" issue. Did we need to go in when we did? Maybe, maybe not - but how long and how many chances to fully comply does Saddam get?

CkG

Where are the weapons and evidence Bush said he had before the war? Where are THEY?

Exactly - where are the weapons that EVERYONE said they knew he had? If you are going to just blame Bush for this then you are just ignorant or blindly partisan. Where are the weapons and evidence that Clinton used as his reasoning in 1998? Oh, I forgot - Bill gets a pass because of the "right-wing conspiracy" And I also ask - does everyone who gave Bush permission to use force lose credibility too? They were spouting the same things that Bush was Need I dig up the links to what Byrd, Clinton(hillary), and etc said?

CkG

Straw man fallacy and hasty generalization. Everone said that they knew he had it? I don't think so, look at the United Nations security council for proof, in fact the majority of the nations seemed to think he did not and was not a threat and not in breach of their resolution which would be a call for war.

Mr. Hasty - Read that quote again I was talking about the US people who said they "knew" You know...Clinton, Byrd, etc.

Show me a country that said, believed, or knew Saddam absolutely didn't have WMD then we'll talk.

CkG

You twisted it again first off you never mentioned the American people, second off the average American does not run the country, that is why we have a representative form of government and not a direct democracy. Bush and his administration are in charge of running the country. Now onto your contention that since no country could prove that saddam did not have WMD that is justification for millitary force. This shoot first ask questions later mentality is a prevailing theme among your posts in this thread. It is clear to me, from your posts, that you feel that justified or not, millitary force ought to be the foremost tool in negotiations. While I say diplomacy through words, and further down the line sanctions ought to be paramount in international relations. I believe it was Robert E. Lee who once said "it is good that war is hell, lest we grow too fond of it" I agree with this statement and would like to offer it as a justifying criterion for my premise of war as a last resort. Also - since you seem to ascribe to the idea of a pre-emptive strike theory, you must also feel that North Korea is justified in its declaration of its right to a pre-emptive strike against the United States. It's the all or none theory, basically you cannot have either or, you must have both. You cannot simply say we are justified because we are stronger, that is no way to quantify right.

Until you READ and UNDERSTAND what I posted you will think it is a "twist"

You are the one who is spinning this and pushing all the blame on Bush. Who gave Bush "permission" to attack? It wouldn't be those people I pointed out..(Hillary, Byrd, and etc)...would it?

I didn't say "no country could prove he didn't" , I said "Show me a country that said, believed, or knew Saddam absolutely didn't have WMD" No country, even now(to my knowledge) is claiming that Saddam didn't have WMD. Who is twisting?

Shoot first mentality? WTF are you smoking? I don't feel that the use of force should be the first option and we did in this case gave diplomacy 12+ years. Rush to war? 14month build up in the gulf? Rush to war? Buahahaha! Keep it up - this is funny - you know, they say laughter is healthy

"pre-emptive war"? Hardly If you read what I posted you would have seen that I wanted Saddam gone along time ago FOR NOT HONORING HIS END OF THE AGREEMENT! We stopped short of Kicking his ass in '91 because he said he would do X and X. He didn't - we should have then kicked his ass. The whole "pre-emptive" label is wrong in this situation IMO. We didn't start this thing with Saddam - but now we are finally putting an end to it.

Now if we went after NK without direct engagement from them then I might label that as "pre-emptive" especially if we did it just because they are after nukes. You see, NK and the US don't have a cease-fire agreement - all we have at the moment is a war of words. Would I support the overthrow of KJI by the US? Probably, but i don't think now is the right time to do so.

CkG

It would seem other countries were not as convinced of SH WMD as you seem to think they were. That's why they insisted on continuing inspections, in order to see if he had any. If they were so convinced, they wouldn't have been so against taking a stronger approach to SH.

 

[Moonbeam]

sandorski, I just thought they were against us stealing all that oil.

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
sandorski, I just thought they were against us stealing all that oil.

Detail exactly how you think the US is stealing the oil. I want the specifics. Are we pumping the oil into tankers that are coming to the US and not telling anyone? C'mon, you made the allegation, now back it up with facts and specifics, if you can.

You wouldn't spread lies on this board now would you moonies?

 

[DaiShan]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: DaiShan

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: DaiShan

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: sandorski

Perhaps SH did not have "proof", it appears that he certainly didn't have WMD.

Yes, it is GWB's fault. He said he had "proof" of SH WMD, now he doesn't. He bashed and belittled France, Blix, and the "Unwilling" for not coming along on the fight against WMD, now he stands smirking and coming up with a new excuse every week(much like the weekly reason for War prior to the invasion)for not finding anything.

So the fact that SH didn't have proof means we blame Bush? I thought that the UN laid out specific terms for compliance? Oh well, I guess you don't believe in accountability then if you think SH should have gotten a pass.

So are you going to say that SH didn't have WMD? You surely have to think that if you say that Bush's "proof" statement is false. Maybe he didn't have them when we attacked, but the question that still remains unanswered by SADDAM is where did they go? He said he had them, the UN said he had them, the rest of the world said that he had them, hell - he even USED them.
Saddam had WMD = TRUE.
The UN told Saddam to get rid of them and show proof = TRUE
Saddam didn't meet said requirements agreed upon by the UN and himself. = TRUE

Care to point out a country that didn't believe the above?

Yeah - you are right - it is ALL Bush's fault

The only thing Bush did was remove Saddam's ass from power, WMD was not a "new" issue. Did we need to go in when we did? Maybe, maybe not - but how long and how many chances to fully comply does Saddam get?

CkG

Where are the weapons and evidence Bush said he had before the war? Where are THEY?

Exactly - where are the weapons that EVERYONE said they knew he had? If you are going to just blame Bush for this then you are just ignorant or blindly partisan. Where are the weapons and evidence that Clinton used as his reasoning in 1998? Oh, I forgot - Bill gets a pass because of the "right-wing conspiracy" And I also ask - does everyone who gave Bush permission to use force lose credibility too? They were spouting the same things that Bush was Need I dig up the links to what Byrd, Clinton(hillary), and etc said?

CkG

Straw man fallacy and hasty generalization. Everone said that they knew he had it? I don't think so, look at the United Nations security council for proof, in fact the majority of the nations seemed to think he did not and was not a threat and not in breach of their resolution which would be a call for war.

Mr. Hasty - Read that quote again I was talking about the US people who said they "knew" You know...Clinton, Byrd, etc.

Show me a country that said, believed, or knew Saddam absolutely didn't have WMD then we'll talk.

CkG

You twisted it again first off you never mentioned the American people, second off the average American does not run the country, that is why we have a representative form of government and not a direct democracy. Bush and his administration are in charge of running the country. Now onto your contention that since no country could prove that saddam did not have WMD that is justification for millitary force. This shoot first ask questions later mentality is a prevailing theme among your posts in this thread. It is clear to me, from your posts, that you feel that justified or not, millitary force ought to be the foremost tool in negotiations. While I say diplomacy through words, and further down the line sanctions ought to be paramount in international relations. I believe it was Robert E. Lee who once said "it is good that war is hell, lest we grow too fond of it" I agree with this statement and would like to offer it as a justifying criterion for my premise of war as a last resort. Also - since you seem to ascribe to the idea of a pre-emptive strike theory, you must also feel that North Korea is justified in its declaration of its right to a pre-emptive strike against the United States. It's the all or none theory, basically you cannot have either or, you must have both. You cannot simply say we are justified because we are stronger, that is no way to quantify right.

Until you READ and UNDERSTAND what I posted you will think it is a "twist"

You are the one who is spinning this and pushing all the blame on Bush. Who gave Bush "permission" to attack? It wouldn't be those people I pointed out..(Hillary, Byrd, and etc)...would it?

I didn't say "no country could prove he didn't" , I said "Show me a country that said, believed, or knew Saddam absolutely didn't have WMD" No country, even now(to my knowledge) is claiming that Saddam didn't have WMD. Who is twisting?

Shoot first mentality? WTF are you smoking? I don't feel that the use of force should be the first option and we did in this case gave diplomacy 12+ years. Rush to war? 14month build up in the gulf? Rush to war? Buahahaha! Keep it up - this is funny - you know, they say laughter is healthy

"pre-emptive war"? Hardly If you read what I posted you would have seen that I wanted Saddam gone along time ago FOR NOT HONORING HIS END OF THE AGREEMENT! We stopped short of Kicking his ass in '91 because he said he would do X and X. He didn't - we should have then kicked his ass. The whole "pre-emptive" label is wrong in this situation IMO. We didn't start this thing with Saddam - but now we are finally putting an end to it.

Now if we went after NK without direct engagement from them then I might label that as "pre-emptive" especially if we did it just because they are after nukes. You see, NK and the US don't have a cease-fire agreement - all we have at the moment is a war of words. Would I support the overthrow of KJI by the US? Probably, but i don't think now is the right time to do so.

CkG

You blatantly disregard by contention that not being able to prove saddam did not posess weapons of mass destruction was not grounds for war. While I offer justifying criterion for my assertion that you are twisting the facts (my above restated contention) you offer none simply saying that I did not read and understand your post. Silence is affirmation, therefore it is safe to say you agree with my contention. Now the fact that you say that we did not launch a pre-emptive strike (where pre-emptive according to websters ninth is defined as marked by the siezing of the initiative: initiated by oneself) is overly adversarial and abusive. You want to be able to have your cake and eat it too, as such I will not address any of your posts further untill you adequately address the points I have brought up. Sun tzu said of the great general "You cannot ensure your victory, but you can ensure against defeat by putting yourself in an easily defensible position." While I first secure my contentions then move on to attack yours, you disregard my attacks and simply launch more attacks. As I have stated silence is affirmation, if you do not refute it, you must agree with it.

 

[DaiShan]

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
sandorski, I just thought they were against us stealing all that oil.

Detail exactly how you think the US is stealing the oil. I want the specifics. Are we pumping the oil into tankers that are coming to the US and not telling anyone? C'mon, you made the allegation, now back it up with facts and specifics, if you can.

You wouldn't spread lies on this board now would you moonies?

Comon etech - I know you can do better than that, that is dense of you to assume that we are taking oil under gunpoint. However the simple fact of the matter is that we have said we will not pay to rebuild Iraq (I actually agree with this move, which is a break with historical US policy) hence the iraqi people must find some way to pay for the rebuilding that must be done. Now how would they do this, with their currency so unstable? Easy, they have an abundance of natural resources (fossil fuels, namely oil) with this black gold they can pey their debts, however, their debts are many, and ever growing, they must sell an abundance of this oil. Who will be right there to take it? The United States, however you have to be crazy if you think we are paying OPEC prices for that oil. We are getting lower prices because a) we occupy their country b) they owe us a lot of money and c) they have to rebuild a stable iraq, and oil may just be what keeps the cold wind from their backs, and food on the table.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Bowfinger: I think this may be why we can't see eye-to-eye on this war. In my mind, invading another country is an absolute last resort, after every other option is exhausted. It is only justified in response to a real, significant, and imminent danger to the U.S. or its allies. It is NOT to be used as a negotiating tactic or a lever to persuade others. It is NOT a legitimate tool for empire-building or political gain. It must NOT be based on hearsay or convenience or wishful thinking. It certainly isn't an appropriate response to missing paperwork.

In my opinion, there was no urgency that demanded we invade Iraq. So what if Iraq wasn't complying with 1441 as well as we wanted? So what if we already gave Iraq 12 years to comply? So what if Iraq agreed to these terms (at gunpoint, I might add)? While Iraq's defiance may have been a threat to our egos and our patience, it certainly wasn't a threat to our safety. As the world's greatest democracy and its last remaining superpower, we have a higher responsibility to be responsible and temperate in our dealings with the world. We should be too strong and too noble to overreact to a pipsqueak nuisance like 2003 Iraq.

The most charitable interpretation of Bush's rush to invade Iraq is that his good sense was outgunned by his impatience and his swaggering, shoot-from-the-hip, cowboy mentality. A less favorable view is that his invasion was a cynical, immoral attempt to further his personal and political agenda: distract from his domestic performance, looming financial scandals, and failure to find Osama bin Laden; establish a U.S. footprint in the Middle East; control Iraqi oil, undermining OPEC and benefiting his oil buddies in the process; improve his image in preparation for the 2004 election; establish a 1984-style perpetual state of war; maybe even extract revenge on the guy who wronged his daddy.

Bush had dozens of possible reasons for invading Iraq; we'll likely never know which of them topped his list. In my opinion, none justifies launching a war and killing and maiming thousands of innocent people. None of these justifies burying this country with up to half a trillion dollars of additional debt. Lacking a clear and immediate danger from Iraq, we should have continued the policies of inspections and containment even though it was frustrating and irritating and even a little embarrassing to be jerked around by a scumbag like Saddam Hussein. We're supposed to be big enough to take it.

If I'm reading you right, CkG, you set the bar a little lower on acceptable criteria for war. That's your right, but it means we'll never agree on the justness of Bush's invasion of Iraq.
-------------------------------
That was one hell of a fine post.

Agreed. a 10.

Used to be I thought this war war good from the standpoint of commiting to our resolve and for Iraqis. Now I feel just the opposite so thiers not really anything to discuss anymore it has gotten boring and makes me ill.

Either you feel the ends justifies war and killing, or as Telford Taylor the american prosecutor at Nuernberg said.. ?launching an aggressive war is illegal, whatever may be the factors that caused the defendants to plan and to launch the war."

 

[Phokus]

The 9 people who voted that bush has gained credibility should be summarily executed for extreme stupidity.

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: DaiShan

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
sandorski, I just thought they were against us stealing all that oil.

Detail exactly how you think the US is stealing the oil. I want the specifics. Are we pumping the oil into tankers that are coming to the US and not telling anyone? C'mon, you made the allegation, now back it up with facts and specifics, if you can.

You wouldn't spread lies on this board now would you moonies?

Comon etech - I know you can do better than that, that is dense of you to assume that we are taking oil under gunpoint. However the simple fact of the matter is that we have said we will not pay to rebuild Iraq (I actually agree with this move, which is a break with historical US policy) hence the iraqi people must find some way to pay for the rebuilding that must be done. Now how would they do this, with their currency so unstable? Easy, they have an abundance of natural resources (fossil fuels, namely oil) with this black gold they can pey their debts, however, their debts are many, and ever growing, they must sell an abundance of this oil. Who will be right there to take it? The United States, however you have to be crazy if you think we are paying OPEC prices for that oil. We are getting lower prices because a) we occupy their country b) they owe us a lot of money and c) they have to rebuild a stable iraq, and oil may just be what keeps the cold wind from their backs, and food on the table.

BS, prove it. You made the claim that the US is getting the oil, prove it.

You made the claim that the US is getting oil at reduced prices, prove it.

edit/

However the simple fact of the matter is that we have said we will not pay to rebuild Iraq

Where do you get your information?

U.S. Aid to Iraq Most Significant Since the Marshall Plan
23 June 2003
...
He said that before the Iraq war, the U.S. Congress approved a supplemental budget of $2,400 million for reconstruction and humanitarian assistance in Iraq, with a portion of the money set aside in case of a large-scale "humanitarian emergency" related to the war. Natsios said that since the war did not produce such a crisis, it might be possible for U.S. officials to use some of the humanitarian assistance funds for reconstruction work.

He noted that U.S. funding for Iraq represents America's largest assistance effort in a single country since the Marshall Plan that helped transform Europe following World War II. "This is an enormous commitment," Natsios said.

He said U.S. officials in Iraq were working closely with international organizations and humanitarian groups that specialize in development
and reconstruction work. To illustrate, he said that $40 million in U.S. funds had been channeled to UNICEF (United Nations Children's
Fund), another $10 million to the World Health Organization (WHO) and $10 million to UNESCO (United Nations Education, Scientific and
Cultural Organization) for textbooks and other educational supplies. Another $70 million has gone to various non-governmental organizations (NGOs) for community development activities.
...

 

[LunarRay]

There is no government in place in Iraq to give the ok to take the oil and I don't recall a vote of the people authorizing the removal of their assets.

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: HJD1
There is no government in place in Iraq to give the ok to take the oil and I don't recall a vote of the people authorizing the removal of their assets.

Take, interesting word there HJD1, can you back that up?

Is the oil being sold or is it being taken. Where is the money from the oil going?

 

[Moonbeam]

sandorski, I just thought they were against us stealing all that oil.
----------------------------
You wouldn't spread lies on this board now would you moonies?
-------------------------
Not intentionally, of course. Why, am I wrong. I thought oil was why the war was fought because that's what everybody either keeps saying or keeps denying. I was just reminding everybody of this common perception. We only know what we hear, right?

DaiShan maybe knows more about it than I.

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
sandorski, I just thought they were against us stealing all that oil.
----------------------------
You wouldn't spread lies on this board now would you moonies?
-------------------------
Not intentionally, of course. Why, am I wrong. I thought oil was why the war was fought because that's what everybody either keeps saying or keeps denying. I was just reminding everybody of this common perception. We only know what we hear, right?

DaiShan maybe knows more about it than I.

Thanks for the laugh moonie.



edit
In response to your earlier post.

Secretary of State Colin Powell made an eloquent point about America's desire for "empire building" to the Archbishop of Canterbury.

During an address to the World Economic Forum, Secretary of State Colin Powell was asked a somewhat long and involved question by the former Archbishop of Canterbury, George Carey, which ended with the following interrogative:


And would you not agree, as a very significant political figure in the United States, Colin, that America, at the present time, is in danger of relying too much upon the hard power and not enough upon building the trust from which the soft values, which of course all of our family life that actually at the bottom, when the bottom line is reached, is what makes human life valuable?
Secretary Powell delivered a lengthy response to the former Archbishop's question, in the midst of which came the eloquent line quoted in the example above:

The United States believes strongly in what you call soft power, the value of democracy, the value of the free economic system, the value of making sure that each citizen is free and free to pursue their own God-given ambitions and to use the talents that they were given by God. And that is what we say to the rest of the world. That is why we participated in establishing a community of democracy within the Western Hemisphere. It's why we participate in all of these great international organizations.

There is nothing in American experience or in American political life or in our culture that suggests we want to use hard power. But what we have found over the decades is that unless you do have hard power ? and here I think you're referring to military power ? then sometimes you are faced with situations that you can't deal with.

I mean, it was not soft power that freed Europe. It was hard power. And what followed immediately after hard power? Did the United States ask for dominion over a single nation in Europe? No. Soft power came in the Marshall Plan. Soft power came with American GIs who put their weapons down once the war was over and helped all those nations rebuild. We did the same thing in Japan.

So our record of living our values and letting our values be an inspiration to others I think is clear. And I don't think I have anything to be ashamed of or apologize for with respect to what America has done for the world.

(Applause.)

We have gone forth from our shores repeatedly over the last hundred years and we?ve done this as recently as the last year in Afghanistan and put wonderful young men and women at risk, many of whom have lost their lives, and we have asked for nothing except enough ground to bury them in, and otherwise we have returned home to seek our own, you know, to seek our own lives in peace, to live our own lives in peace. But there comes a time when soft power or talking with evil will not work where, unfortunately, hard power is the only thing that works.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: HJD1
There is no government in place in Iraq to give the ok to take the oil and I don't recall a vote of the people authorizing the removal of their assets.

Take, interesting word there HJD1, can you back that up?

Is the oil being sold or is it being taken. Where is the money from the oil going?

Take = to get into one's possession or control... we have achieved this.

To legally sell one should be a legal holder in due course. Have we the document from the Iraqi people to prove we are the legal holder in due course? If we do not then we have misappropriated the assets of the Iraqi people even if the taking will inure to their benefit.