War in Iraq, for or against

[Morgana]

Quite simply, do you agree with it, disagree, or undecided?

[jeo4]

I agree with the end results. I don't agree with staying any longer than necessary.

[Grebdron]

Disagree!

Could our mission BE any more misguided?

[quoth_the_raven]

I disagree with the reasoning and the evidence provided, but I do support the troops we have over there. Regardless of the facts, those fighting deserve our best wishes and support.

[JCR]

God it's insane. It's bollocks. We're giving democracy to the people? Ha. What about North korea, china, etc, countries equally deserving democracy, of course we won't touch them with a ten foot pole. Oh and the usa ain't in control of iraq, Ayatollah Sistani is (http://www.sistani.org/), and if he ever decides it's jihad time vietnam part 2 will quickly follow.

[TheDeadWalk]

Not without the backing of the United Nations. We have that faction for a reason, use it. Don't play God with the world, especially because you believe YOUR God wants you to. (Yet we are trying to prevent an Islamic government, which is governed by the word of God...?)

Bush is in the wrong.

[JohnTheHenchman]

I hate the U.N. so it's not because he did it without their backing that I don't support it, I don't support it because I see no point. I saw a point in sticking it to terrorist groups and maybe something did go on between Bin Laden and Hussein, but in my opinion invading Iraq made no sense at this time.

Oh well.

[ANavissi500]

we went there for the wrong reasons and capturing Saddam isn't going to change that.

[blankpage]

Originally posted by quoth_the_raven
I disagree with the reasoning and the evidence provided, but I do support the troops we have over there. Regardless of the facts, those fighting deserve our best wishes and support.

My thoughts exactly. My prayers are with the troops every single day of my life. But, the reason why they're there just makes me sad.

[Tom Samborski]

I was against the war in Iraq from the very beginning, so it's obvious that I would vote disagree.

[Scarface98.9]

I was undecided for about the first 10 months. The pros of it would be less of a risk of terrorist attack, the removal of Saddam, and bringing Bin Laden to justice. But 10 months later, as the "evidence" falls apart and Bush becomes even more in the red, I began to disagree with it. Capturing Saddam was good, but we're creating a bigger mess there, and with chaos expected after June 30th, the war is losing its purpose. Many bring up that Bush may be doing this to impress his dad, but it's kinda ironic that almost all signs lead to the original Bush being anti-war

[The Postmaster General]

All in all, I agree with the war.

But I voted disagree.

Let me explain:

I'm not a military genius of any sort -- hell no, I am far from that. Hell, I've never even played risk.

One thing that gets me -- We have a war on drugs that is fought, and the key opponents are toppled with no problem. However, we don't need fucking tanks to do it. We don't need air raid siren going off.

You mean to tell me that with government forces lke the CIA (and many others) that we couldn't have systematically taken down Saddam and his regime?

BUllSHIT!!

And don't start with shit like, "Well, this is different, it's on a bigger scale."

BUllSHIT!


I went to a convention for a drug task force, and among the technology they showed-off was these satallite pictures of people hauling drugs in the back of a truck, illegal activity captured through a window.....

So, from space, we can see through someone's window, but we say it is necessary to blow up every building around Saddam's palace in order to capture Saddam?

Hey, here's an idea - Instead of blowing up the whole country of Iraq, why not just blow up the house of the asshole you're after?? I know muder is wrong, but assassination makes more sense sense than partial genocide.

Maybe if you did that you wouldn't have the world wanting to piss in our corn flakes, and American's like Paul Johnson wouldn't be getting beheaded.

Am I taking crazy pills?

[Thrizzle]

Against the war.

1. No weapons of mass destruction. All the politicians say, "Well everyone thought he had them." WRONG. You know what organization said publicaly he didnt have them? THE UN WEAPONS INSPECTORS.

2. Iraq didnt pose a threat. Not only is there no link to Al Quaeda, but there has only been one Iraqi terrorist, and that was 10 years ago. (Attempt to assasinate Bush senior).

3. The thing i hate most is when politicians say, "Well we did it to help the Iraqi people." Bullshit. Since when do you give a fuck about them? Here's a hint, since it potentially helps your career. How about you fix the problems at home before you create new ones abroad.

[Adornado]

Originally posted by Scarface98.9
I was undecided for about the first 10 months. The pros of it would be less of a risk of terrorist attack, the removal of Saddam, and bringing Bin Laden to justice. But 10 months later, as the "evidence" falls apart and Bush becomes even more in the red, I began to disagree with it. Capturing Saddam was good, but we're creating a bigger mess there, and with chaos expected after June 30th, the war is losing its purpose. Many bring up that Bush may be doing this to impress his dad, but it's kinda ironic that almost all signs lead to the original Bush being anti-war

Agreed.

[Jon Lyrik]

Originally posted by Thrizzle
3. The thing i hate most is when politicians say, "Well we did it to help the Iraqi people." Bullshit. Since when do you give a fuck about them? Here's a hint, since it potentially helps your career. How about you fix the problems at home before you create new ones abroad.

You read my mind there, sir. They didn't give a shit about the Iraqi people and that they were run by a cruel government. Like JCR said, why aren't we liberating Cuba? North Korea? China? Iran? (I'm sure we'll be in Iran soon too)

And where are the WMDs? Don't you think we would have found them by now? After all, it's been over a year and we've had Saddam for a while.

[Morgana]

I hate to be unoriginal, but I disagree with this war as well. I can understand going after Saddam or Bin Laden, but like Bubba mentioned... we have the CIA, or other very sophisticated agencies, for that. I think our troops are being wasted over there, and I don't think this "liberation" will bear much fruit in the long run.

And do I believe we will pull out by a deadline? Not for a minute. One of my neighors' sons is fighting over there right now, and he's not scheduled to get out of Iraq till September. Deadline my arse, this has the potential to go on forever.

I say bring our troops home. And yes, I make very sure to separate between the troops and the politicians. Vietnam taught us that.

[Ultrahumanite]

Three posts. Ask yourself why you never heard this news reported in the US:

From DEBKA, 1-8-04:

Nizar Najoef, a Syrian journalist who recently defected from Syria to Western Europe and is known for bravely challenging the Syrian regime, said in a letter Monday, January 5, to Dutch newspaper “De Telegraaf,” that he knows the three sites where Iraq’s WMD are kept. The storage places are:

1. Tunnels dug under the town of al-Baida near the city of Hama in northern Syria. These tunnels are an integral part of an underground factory, built by the North Koreans, for producing Syrian Scud missiles. Iraqi chemical weapons and long-range missiles are stored in these tunnels.

2. The village of Tal Snan, north of the town of Salamija, where there is a big Syrian airforce camp. Vital parts of Iraq’s WMD are stored there.

3. The city of Sjinsjar on the Syrian border with the Lebanon, south of the city Homs.

Najoef writes that the transfer of Iraqi WMD to Syria was organized by the commanders of Saddam Hussein’s Special Republican Guard, including General Shalish, with the help of Assif Shoakat , Bashar Assad’s cousin. Shoakat is the CEO of Bhaha, an import/export company owned by the Assad family.

In February 2003, a month before America’s invasion in Iraq, DEBKAfile and DEBKA-Net-Weekly were the only media to report the movement of Iraqi WMD, the efforts to bring them from Iraq to Syria, and the personal involvement of Bashar Assad and his family in the operation.

Najoef, who has won prizes for journalistic integrity, says he wrote his letter because he has terminal cancer.

*********
Just for fun, do a web search for Nizar Najoef. You may be enlightened.

[Ultrahumanite]

Post #2: Partial transcript of 'Meet the Press', which apparently no one watches...

Host: Tim Russert

Guests: Richard Ben-Veniste, 9/11 Commission member, John Lehman, 9/11 Commission member

MR. RUSSERT: Let me turn to the staff report on the relationship, if you will, between Iraq and al- Qaeda, and I'll put it on the board and read it for everyone: "Bin Ladin also explored possible cooperation with Iraq during his time in Sudan, despite his opposition to Hussein's secular regime. ...Bin Ladin is said to have requested space to establish training camps, as well as assistance in procuring weapons, but Iraq apparently never responded. There have been reports that contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda also occurred after Bin Ladin had returned to Afghanistan, but they do appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship. Two senior Bin Ladin associates have adamantly denied that any ties existed between al Qaeda and Iraq. We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States."

****

MR. RUSSERT: Do you agree? Was there any evidence of any connection of Saddam Hussein with September 11?

MR. LEHMAN: Well, I really totally disagree with what I thought was outrageously irresponsible journalism, to portray what the staff statement--and again, this is a staff statement; the commissioners have not addressed this issue yet--to portray it as contradicting what the administration said. There's really very little difference between what our staff found, what the administration is saying today and what the Clinton administration said. The Clinton administration portrayed the relationship between al- Qaeda and Saddam's intelligence services as one of cooperating in weapons development. There's abundant evidence of that. In fact, as you'll soon hear from Joe Klein, President Clinton justified his strike on the Sudan "pharmaceutical" site because it was thought to be manufacturing VX gas with the help of the Iraqi intelligence service.

Since then, that's been validated. There has been traces of Empta that comes straight from Iraq, and this confounds the Republicans, who accused Clinton of doing it for political purposes. But it confirms the cooperative relationship, which were the words of the Clinton administration, between al-Qaeda and Iraqi intelligence.

The Bush administration has never said that they participated in the 9/11 attack. They've said, and our staff has confirmed, there have been numerous contacts between Iraqi intelligence and al-Qaeda over a period of 10 years, at least. And now there's new intelligence, and this has come since our staff report has been written because, as you know, new intelligence is coming in steadily from the interrogations in Guantanamo and in Iraq and from captured documents. And some of these documents indicate that there is at least one officer of Saddam's Fedayeen, a lieutenant colonel, who was a very prominent member of al-Qaeda. That still has to be confirmed. But the vice president was right when he said that he may have things that we don't yet have. And we are now in the process of getting this latest intelligence.

But in any case, it demonstrates the difficulty that we've had in this commission, because we're under tremendous political pressures. Everything we've come out with, one side or the other seizes on in this election year to try to make a political point on.

[Ultrahumanite]

Post #3: Cnn.com article http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/06/19/clinton.iraq/

Clinton defends successor's push for war
Says Bush 'couldn't responsibly ignore' chance Iraq had WMDs

(CNN) -- Former President Clinton has revealed that he continues to support President Bush's decision to go to war in Iraq but chastised the administration over the abuses at Abu Ghraib prison.

"I have repeatedly defended President Bush against the left on Iraq, even though I think he should have waited until the U.N. inspections were over," Clinton said in a Time magazine interview that will hit newsstands Monday, a day before the publication of his book "My Life."

Clinton, who was interviewed Thursday, said he did not believe that Bush went to war in Iraq over oil or for imperialist reasons but out of a genuine belief that large quantities of weapons of mass destruction remained unaccounted for.

Noting that Bush had to be "reeling" in the wake of the attacks of September 11, 2001, Clinton said Bush's first priority was to keep al Qaeda and other terrorist networks from obtaining "chemical and biological weapons or small amounts of fissile material."

"That's why I supported the Iraq thing. There was a lot of stuff unaccounted for," Clinton said in reference to Iraq and the fact that U.N. weapons inspectors left the country in 1998.

"So I thought the president had an absolute responsibility to go to the U.N. and say, 'Look, guys, after 9/11, you have got to demand that Saddam Hussein lets us finish the inspection process.' You couldn't responsibly ignore [the possibility that] a tyrant had these stocks," Clinton said.

[Thrizzle]

1. The problem with testemonials coming from defectors is that they lie to gain asylum in a country. The case for war was made in large part due to the "intellegence" given to us from Iraqi scientists who defected to the US. But they were let into the country and given asylum because we thought they had information we needed. If they didnt we wouldn't give them jack. So as it turns out, they lied for that reason.
If however this Syrian defector is telling the truth, and the weapons are now in Syria, what does that say about this war and Bush.......he succeeded in facilitating the transfer of WMD's to a far more dangerous country, with a greater willingness to use them.

2. There was a relationship between Al Qaeda and Iraq, no one disputes that. What is disputed is a working relationship, an alliance between the two. It is widely known that Saddam hated Bin Laden, and there is no evidence they were working together. Iraq did however reject their offers.

[Grim H.]

Disagree. And here's why...

Bush seemd to want to use September 11th as an excuse to wage war on Iraq. We have no more reason to be over there than before the tragedy struck. But because his timing was right, he was able to change the target from Al Quaida (sp?) to Hussein, without anyone noticing. But there was no evidence that the two were even linked.

But Bush went and started blowing the place apart anyway. And for what? So they could catch Saddam? They blew a whole country apart for one fucking person?!

And to anyone who claims that Saddam was a dictator and needed to be taken out of power...fine. But is that really what the war is based on? Because if you look at history, you'll see that the US government never really seemed to mind dictators...Fulgencio Batista anyone?

Ths US never cared about the average rights of Cubans in the 50's, because that was very profitable for American Business.

And so is the war in Iraq. Wars cost money, but who do you think keeps that money? It pours straight into American Businesses. Guns, defense systems, missiles, everything...

So why are we in Iraq. Is it because of a supposed link to Al Quaida? No

Is it because if WMD's? No

Is it because Saddam is a dictator? No.

So I ask...why are we in Iraq? Because as an American citizen, I think I have a right to know...

[Ultrahumanite]

You know, taking Saddam out of power wasn't an idea that George W. Bush originated. Clinton was advised to do the same thing (http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm) and made an excellent case fo it to the American public. The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 says, "It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime." So removing Saddam was official White House Policy since well before Bush was elected. As the article above mentioned:


Clinton said he did not believe that Bush went to war in Iraq over oil or for imperialist reasons but out of a genuine belief that large quantities of weapons of mass destruction remained unaccounted for.

Noting that Bush had to be "reeling" in the wake of the attacks of September 11, 2001, Clinton said Bush's first priority was to keep al Qaeda and other terrorist networks from obtaining "chemical and biological weapons or small amounts of fissile material."

Clinton himself made a strong case for removing Saddam from power in 1998 on national TV, after calling Iraq an "outlaw nation" in league with an "unholy axis of terrorists, drug traffickers and organized international criminals":


What if Saddam Hussein fails to comply, and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route which gives him yet more opportunities to develop his program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of the sanctions and continue to ignore the solemn commitments that he made? Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction... If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow... Some day, some way, I guarantee you, he'll use the arsenal... We have to defend our future from these predators of the 21st century. They will be all the more lethal if we allow them to build arsenals of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them. We simply cannot allow that to happen. There is no more clear example of this threat than Saddam Hussein.

Unfortunately, five days after Mr. Clinton delived this speech (am I the only person in this country who remembers it?), Kofi Annan struck yet another deal with Saddam, and Clinton backed off. Ten months after Saddam accepted Annan's offer, he kicked U.N. weapons inspectors out of Iraq for good. President Clinton did what he could at the time (after all, this was well before anybody had started crashing airplanes into skyscrapers -- and wouldn't we love to find out what Saddam was maybe cooking on his griddle when a great big cloud of it fumigates Manhattan after the next terrorist attack?) by bombing Iraq and patrolling the no-fly zones, but he faced some heavy criticism from House International Relations Committee Chairman Benjamin Gilman (R-NY) for not following through with his design for removing Saddam:


A year and a half ago, a number of us here in Congress decided to help the President end this problem once and for all by passing the Iraq Liberation Act. This legislation authorized the President to provide $97 million in US military assistance to the democratic opposition to Saddam Hussein. President Clinton welcomed this authority, and in November 1998, he declared that he was going to use it to remove Saddam from power. Since then, there has been precious little follow-through on the President's commitment... It is no wonder that our allies in the region, to say nothing of members of the opposition itself, question whether the administration is really serious about its declared policy of removing Saddam from power... There have been no international weapons inspections in Iraq for 15 months. There is every reason to believe that Saddam has used this time to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction programs.

No doubt they were already skeptical of us; President Bush I urged the Iraqi people to rise up against Saddam during Desert Storm, building expectations that the United States would support them, only to abandon them when they did (in much the same way that Jimmy Carter's administration betrayed the Shah of Iran -- talk about how to win friends and influence people!) In any case, we know that Mr. Clinton was at least concerned about the massive stockpiles of WMD that were left unaccounted for. As he said: (Italics added for emphasis)

Just consider the facts: Iraq repeatedly made false declarations about the weapons that it had left in its possession after the Gulf War. When UNSCOM would then uncover evidence that gave the lie to those declarations, Iraq would simply amend the reports. For example, Iraq revised its nuclear declarations four times within just 14 months and it has submitted six different biological warfare declarations, each of which has been rejected by UNSCOM. In 1995, Hussein Kamal, Saddam's son-in-law, and chief organizer of Iraq's weapons-of-mass-destruction program, defected to Jordan. He revealed that Iraq was continuing to conceal weapons and missiles and the capacity to build many more. Then and only then did Iraq admit to developing numbers of weapons in significant quantities and weapon stocks. Previously, it had vehemently denied the very thing it just simply admitted once Saddam Hussein's son-in-law defected to Jordan and told the truth.

Now listen to this: What did it admit? It admitted, among other things, an offensive biological warfare capability--notably 5,000 gallons of botulinum, which causes botulism; 2,000 gallons of anthrax; 25 biological-filled Scud warheads; and 157 aerial bombs. And might I say, UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq has actually greatly understated its production.
Next, throughout this entire process, Iraqi agents have undermined and undercut UNSCOM. They've harassed the inspectors, lied to them, disabled monitoring cameras, literally spirited evidence out of the back doors of suspect facilities as inspectors walked through the front door. And our people were there observing it and had the pictures to prove it. "


September 11th only made the matter more urgent -- we could have waited for the UN to twiddle their thumbs and give Saddam even more chances to comply (as they had for the past eleven years, or we could take some decisive action as outlined under the UN resolutions -- which is what Bush did.

Clinton was not alone in his desire to see Saddam removed from power; Dick Gephardt wanted to know what a democratic Iraq would look like (looks like he'll finally get a chance to find out). Tom Daschle wanted to "send as clear a message as possible that we are going to force, one way or another, diplomatically or militarily, Iraq to comply with international law.":

'Look, we have exhausted virtually our diplomatic effort to get the Iraqis to comply with their own agreements and with international law. Given that, what other option is there but to force them to do so?' That's what they're saying. This is the key question. And the answer is we don't have another option. We have got to force them to comply, and we are doing so militarily.

John Kerry also agreed with the idea of US military force in Iraq:

If there is not unfettered, unrestricted, unlimited access per the U.N. resolution for inspections, and UNSCOM cannot in our judgment appropriately perform its functions, then we obviously reserve the rights to press that case internationally and to do what we need to do as a nation in order to be able to enforce those rights... Saddam Hussein has already used these weapons and has made it clear that he has the intent to continue to try, by virtue of his duplicity and secrecy, to continue to do so. That is a threat to the stability of the Middle East. It is a threat with respect to the potential of terrorist activities on a global basis. It is a threat even to regions near but not exactly in the Middle East.

Well said.

So all Bush did was enforce international law, since nobody else seemed willing to, and since after 9/11, the stakes were just a little bit higher -- it was too great a chance to take, even though we were aware of the potential risks.

And don't give me that "Osama hated Saddam" argument. So what? Have you never heard of alliances of convenience? There are innumerable instances through history of two enemies joing together to vanquish a greater common enemy. We hated Stalin in the 40's, but we didn't have any trouble with joining forces with him to eliminate the greater percieved threat of the Nazis. It happens, people.

[Thrizzle]

Yea it happens but so far evidence in this case concludes it didnt happen. There is no concrete evidence supporting a working relationship.

And the issue really shouldn't be what Clinton thought in 1998, considering it was 5 years in the past and there was very little evidence to support war in Iraq now. They had testimonials from Iraqi defectors which wasn't reliable, and a history of weapon production a decade old. If the White House has listened to the Weapons Inspectors, we wouldnt be in Iraq right now.

There are much bigger threats around the world and even in that region (proven and well known).

Why Iraq? Certainly the amount the administrations campaign contributers have profited from Iraqi contracts (in oil) should trouble you.

The most troubling part i find about this situation is how fast the administartion rushed into war. We're suffering for it now arent we.

[loner]

In today's ultra-dangerous times, the war was more necessary than it wasn't. The primary reason of course is national security. September 11 was a clarion call that America faces a new threat, a threat perhaps even more dangerous than the Soviet Union. That threat is Islamo-fascism.

Now due to a successful campaign in Afghanistan, the Taliban is no more, and Al-Qaeda was largely disrupted. We can also feel proud about removing Saddam and his murderous regime from the face of the earth, a humanitarian and benevolent act by any standard of morality. However, it is not enough to simply go after the terrorists and the tyrants, we must also change the conditions in which they thrive.

The reality is that Muslims are no different than any other group of people, in that when a society is run by tyranny, when there is no economic, social or civil liberty, this breeds frustration, poverty, alienation, and fear. The people in these countries, rather than look to themselves as the cause of their problems, instead need a scapegoat, an enemy, which the dictator is always happy to provide.

Take the issue of the Palestinians. The Arabs have six million square miles of land. They could give their Palestinian brothers a state tomorrow, and with one day's oil profits give every one of them a bar of gold. Instead, the Arab dictators prop up Arafat and his loathsome gang of oppressors, and brainwash their people to be pure monsters. When mothers happily send their children off to bomb buses and schools, this is not based on any rational grievance. No, this is endemic of a sick, utterly immoral, anti-life culture that serves only one purpose: to keep tyrants in power.

For the last 50 years, Israel has been the shock absorbers for Western Civilization, taking the blows, fighting the fight. But Islamic fundamentalism has escalated this war into a global clash of civilizations. It's similar to the Cold War in that it is Freedom vs. Statism, but what makes it even more dangerous is that Islamic terrorists are so utterly irrational, so willing to kill just for the sake of killing. This menace must be stopped.

So the best reason for going to war with Iraq is that it is time to start draining the swamp of Islamo-fascism. If we see this through, the rebuilding of Iraq as a free republic, then it is our hope that it will become a paragon of hope for that benighted region.

Now ultimately this is not a military battle, but a war of ideas, a clash of two diametrically opposed value systems: free markets and rule of law versus statist dictatorships and rule of men. That's why Iraq has become a line in the desert sand between those who want liberty and those who want power, and that is why we must prevail. This is the only way we will ever achieve real national security.

[Ultrahumanite]

Yeah. What he just said.

[someguy]

If they simply decided to go in because they wanted to get rid of the man who has made millions(i might be overestimating here or not)of people die and his regime, I would support it. The whole WMD thing was really not needed.