Originally Posted by P/N Did I state otherwise? Nope, I didn't think so. The fact that you're using 9/11 to explain why Saddam was worth it squarely puts you in the category of trying to justify Iraq because of 9/11... and once again, it doesn't negate any of the reasons ...
08-16-2007, 08:27 AM
| #61 | ||||
| ipsa Scientia Potestas est  Pragmatist North Carolina 
| Originally Posted by P/N The fact that you're using 9/11 to explain why Saddam was worth it squarely puts you in the category of trying to justify Iraq because of 9/11... and once again, it doesn't negate any of the reasons Cheney said trying to topple Saddam wasn't worth it.
Originally Posted by P/N No it didn't. Even if he had WMD's and such, he had no means of launching missiles or anything like that which posed a danger to the US. And in fact, long before the invasion (hell, before 9/11 even) there are statements from top level Administration officials (Powell, Rice) stating that sanctions had worked, Saddam was contained and had no significant ability to pose a threat even to his neighbors.
Originally Posted by P/N Saddam posed no threat to the United States. You can't go to war with every country you don't like. And we don't.
Otherwise I'm sure the Republicans would have tried to take us to war with France after getting rid of french fries and trying to send the Statue of Liberty back  I love how people trying to justify the Iraq war turn to UN resolutions and sanctions against him but have no problem with the fact that we went around the UN as well. It's hilarious. You can't have it both ways. Either the UN is an organization that has the ability to bind sovereign nations to certain things, or it doesn't. If we're not bound by the judgment of the security council and other bodies, then we can't rightfully claim other sovereign nations should be either. Originally Posted by P/N Of course not, if we are in imminent danger of an attack we have every right to defend our country. but Saddam posed no danger to the United States. High level Administration officials made statements to this end long before the case for war was being created. We shouldn't start a war with a country unless it's in self defense, and this wasn't a war of self defense, it was a war of choice.
Originally Posted by P/N I realize the "war on a tactic" was the driving force behind going into Iraq, which is why Bush's Administration made such a huge effort to link Saddam, 9/11, Al Qaeda, and Osama.. Even in this very post you've done the same.
Saddam didn't cooperate with Al Qaeda, or Osama. They had ideological differences, one is a religious zealot, the other is a secularist who was more worried about keeping power than attacking the United States. Originally Posted by P/N It's not reason enough to sacrifice 3000 American lives, billions (trillions before we're done with it) of dollars, potentially hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives, destabilization of the middle east, empowering Iran, breaking our military.. etc, no.. especially when he posed no threat to the United States or his neighbors.
It wasn't a war of self defense. Originally Posted by P/N Hey, who ever said Saddam wasn't a bad guy that did bad things?
Something that happened 16 years ago isn't justification for war today. He posed no threat to the United States.. and plenty of other countries Originally Posted by P/N The only facts I see are ones that have been misconstrued to link Saddam and 9/11 to point to justification. The only reality behind your argument I see is one clouded by GOP rhetoric attempting to link Saddam and 9/11
Originally Posted by P/N The only category I put myself in is one that disagrees with your conclusions, and am simply pointing out that accusing other people of being 'stupid' for their disagreement isn't going to get you very far in this forum..
Originally Posted by P/N Calling a conclusion is intellectually dishonest is different than being needlessly hostile and incessantly insulting to people who I disagree with.
 Originally Posted by P/N Yeah, 9/11 did change everything, including apparently, reality.
In February of 2001 Colin Powell said this: Originally Posted by Colin Powell and in July of 2001:
Originally Posted by Condoleeza Rice So, as far as reality goes, I think I have history on my side.
I'm still waiting to see these facts that negate Cheney's statement. So far it's all rhetoric and hyperbole. Last edited by motivez; 08-16-2007 at 09:49 AM.. Reason: mistype | ||||
     |
|
08-16-2007, 11:49 AM
| #62 | ||||
| helluo librorum The Lab Moderator  Humanist Chicago Suburbs
| Originally Posted by motivez I totally agree.
This excuse holds no water when we constantly ignore the UN. | ||||
| |
|
08-16-2007, 01:16 PM
| #63 | ||||
| One American Family at a Time.  Idealist The OC, California
| Originally Posted by Stylerod Well, we all know that list. And we all know how grossly misinformed they were by the data they were given by the Administration.
If you want to say they made a "Boo-Boo", then say it. But, don't pretend that they were all really making informed choices.
__________________ "People are selfish. But they can also be compassionate and generous, and they care about the country. But not when they feel threatened. That's why this is such a crucial time. We can go in either direction. But if we don't make a choice soon, it will be too late to turn things around. I think people are willing to make the right choice. But they need leadership. They're hungry for leadership." BK/1968 | ||||
| |
|
08-16-2007, 02:01 PM
| #64 | ||||
| Dirty Liberal  Democrat South Jersey
| Also don't forget that the vote was not a vote to go to war. It was a vote to give the president the authority to go to war if needed. Don't forget that congress has the sole power to declare war, and if they did not cede this authority to Bush, then the president would not have had the same influence behind him when negotiating with Iraq. It's an important distinction that should never be overlooked. The decision to go to war was Bush's. | ||||
| |
|
08-16-2007, 02:45 PM
| #65 | ||||
| Never, never, never give up  Conservative Party High Point, NC
| Originally Posted by IminWonderland Some of these people were on the commities that distribute that information. A lot of them had the information before Bush did. So some were very informed.
| ||||
| |
|
08-16-2007, 07:27 PM
| #66 | ||||
| Political Genius  Republican Yorba Linda Ca.
| Originally Posted by IminWonderland
Give it a rest. It was the same intelligence data. The same stuff they are cleared to see all the time. The same kind of stuff Al Gore talked about in my link way back when about what a terrible menace Saddam was and how Bush Sr. Looked the other way. You can't put an intelligence failure at the feet of Bush, Clinton, or anyone else. They work for the Whitehouse and report to the Congress no matter who is in charge.
__________________ Sock It To Me!  "Bureaucracy is a Parasite that Preys on Free Thought and Suffocates Free Spirit!" - Douglas Adams | ||||
| |
|
08-16-2007, 08:43 PM
| #67 | ||||
| Friend to all.  Socialist Maryland
| The more I watch that video, the more it just gets under my skin. How could someone be that prophetic about what would happen and STILL there was absolutely NO PLAN for after-war Iraq? It's not so much the fact they invaded...it's the fact that him and I am sure most of the administration KNEW this would happen and still conducted a HORRIBLE war/occupation. It is complete incompetence and I am trying to figure out how that's not grounds for impeachment? | ||||
| |
|
08-16-2007, 10:29 PM
| #68 | ||||
| A realist in the land of the fanatical  Realist Kansas City, MO 
| Originally Posted by motivez You have ignored every fact I laid out, but I expected exactly that. No where did I link Saddam and 9/11. He didn't have anything to do with it and the administration has not stated this either. What 9/11 did was open our eyes to the threat imposed on the free world by these terrorists. Bush didn't want to take the chance that Al Queda and Saddam would "join forces" or that Saddam would provide Al Queda with WMD's or the technology to create them. You just keep spinning and spinning and spinning and ignoring the threat of terrorists. Saddam was not a direct threat to the United States. He was an indirect threat. I agree with going into Iraq, but I also agree that there were better places to focus our efforts than Iraq at that time.
What's done is done. You can sit back and Monday morning quarterback this all you want to. I'll let you in on a little secret though, it's a waste of time. Clinton should have gone after Al Queda after the first WTC bombing, or the Khobar Towers bombing, or even the USS Cole attack. Bush should have stayed focused on Al Queda and finished the job in Afghanistan before anything else. I said it before we went into Iraq that we were damned if we did and damned if we didn't. Iraq might not turn out to be a total failure, but keep in mind that it will be years before we can honestly answer that question. To do so now would be "intellectually dishonest" wouldn't it? | ||||
| |
|
08-16-2007, 10:32 PM
| #69 | ||||
| Yeah, that guy.  Progressive Oregon
| Originally Posted by P/N Obviously you know absolutely nothing about Saddam. He ran a secular state, and had little care for muslim fundamentalists.
| ||||
| |
|
08-16-2007, 10:45 PM
| #70 | ||||
| Friend to all. Socialist Maryland
| Originally Posted by P/N
The only problem with your "fact" is that it's 100% false. Bin Laden and Al Qaeda hated Saddam. They even offered to get Saddam out of Kuwait for the Saudis. Saddam also wasn't a fan of the muslim fundamentalists. | ||||
| |
|
08-17-2007, 01:16 AM
| #71 | ||||
| A realist in the land of the fanatical Realist Kansas City, MO
| Originally Posted by garbagemanlb I'm thinking that I know a little more about Saddam than you do. Try reading "Saddam's Secrets" by Gen. Georges Sada. He served under Saddam and knew what the man was capable of. Saddam hated the US and even though he ran a secular state, it was a very real possibility that he would hook up with a major terrorist group who also sought the destruction of the US. Despite all that, you have still not refuted any of the facts I presented, congratulations.
 | ||||
| |
|
08-17-2007, 01:18 AM
| #72 | ||||
| A realist in the land of the fanatical Realist Kansas City, MO
| Originally Posted by Donkey® Which "fact" was that? I listed several facts earlier in this post. I look forward to laughing at your response disputing that 9/11 really happened or that there are terrorists that want to kill us.
| ||||
| |
|
08-17-2007, 01:43 AM
| #73 | ||||
| Banned - Self Imposed  Progressive Philadelphia, PA
| The US's own ISG released a final report on Iraq's WMD and the Duelfer post-war report refutes Sada I guess, Bush, Cheney, US military intelligence...could all be in a massive conspiracy to smear Sada...or he's lying hmmm | ||||
| |
|
08-17-2007, 02:05 AM
| #74 | ||||
| Yeah, that guy. Progressive Oregon
| Originally Posted by Thorgrim
It's the liberal media.  | ||||
| |
|
08-17-2007, 05:30 AM
| #75 | ||||
| A realist in the land of the fanatical Realist Kansas City, MO
| Originally Posted by Thorgrim You seem to know an awful lot about lying, why don't you tell me?
| ||||
| |
|
08-17-2007, 05:35 AM
| #76 | ||||
| ipsa Scientia Potestas est Pragmatist North Carolina
| Originally Posted by P/N And yet going to war in Iraq hasn't changed that, and if anything, has created more terrorists that want to kill us.. thus, again, not making the US or the rest of the world any safer, and still failing to negate anything that Cheney said about why going after Saddam wasn't worth it.
Lastly, Islamic extremism (ie: Al Qaeda) was a threat to Saddam's power, as Thorgrim pointed out, there are multiple reports that refute Sada, and also this Administration's attempts to link them together. Originally Posted by P/N Well, that's entirely incorrect. The Bush Administration, on many occasions, attempted to link Saddam and Al Qaeda.
Al Qaeda attacked us on 9/11. If Saddam is connected and in league with him, and has some sort of collaborative effort with them, then by the transitive property of terrorism allegations, he was partially repsonsible for 9/11 as well. There is clear evidence that they had a campaign going to link the two in the minds of the American public, blatantly. There have been studies done that show even today many Americans still think Saddam and Al Qaeda were connected and that he was somehow responsible for 9/11. That doesn't happen without a misinformation campaign, and that's exactly what the Bush Administration was doing. Originally Posted by George W. Bush
| ||||
| |
