George's War vs. "War on Terror"

[David Octavius]

I think it is time to draw a line between the “war on terror”, which our great soldiers are fighting in Afghanistan and George’s war, which our great soldiers are fighting in Iraq.

Now hindsight is indeed 20-20 but looking back, Iraq should not have been a priority if our object was fighting terror against Americans, there are plenty of degenerates that are higher on that scale and much more of a threat than Iraq was at that time – if at all. Whatever else you want to say about it is fine but again looking back and measuring strictly against whether this was initially part of the “war on terror” it should be clear is was not. The fact that is has since morphed into part of it, is a consequence of the Administrations actions and since it headed by George W Bush, I have to call it George’s war. It was his administrations reasoning’s and evidence that got us into it and his decisions that steering the direction of it. No one was thinking about Iraq until he brought it up, none of the hijackers who attacked us were Iraqis, there was absolutely no connection whatsoever. We went to war because it was his will – and the idiot democrats and republicans that gave him a blank check to do what he wants.

The “war on terror” is different, we went into Afghanistan to get the group that is directly linked to terror, unfortunately, George’s war has taken the resources this war needs to get bin laden and put it into Iraq.

These two wars are different, Afghanistan gave us the moral high ground to protect our people and secure our liberty, the war in Iraq took away all those good things and may make us less secure if George continues to make wrong choices in his war.

What we do from here is anyone's guess, no one knows for certain what will work, George's war really put us in a pickle

[Dharma Bum]

I think the war in Iraq would've happened no matter what. If Clinton had gotten four more years, if Gore had been elected, whatever. Saddam liked to tempt us. Seventeen cease fire violations. U.N. corruption scandal. And we have independent reports that Iraq would be where Iran is now if we didn't go in, due to the fact the sanctions would've ended a while ago.

Democrats supported the war, not only when it started, but years before it started. Not just the oddball like Lieberman, but names, big names. Hillary Clinton compared the invasion of Iraq to the bombing of Kosovo. Thing is, we went in with the idea that, if we free these people, life'll be better for us. We didn't know that the Iraqi people would be fucking savages. Thus the casualty count is somewhere around 150k for civilians according to the U.N., and 600k according to bleeding heart anti-war filthy hippies. If the casualty count was 600k, there wouldn't be an insurgency. We're not fighting a war there any more, we're policing civilians, with no uniform. How bad can you feel when you hear about a U.S. bomb hitting a house full of civilians when its civilians who are bombing U.S. soldiers? Not much.

Now, we leave, we throw the country to either the Sunnis or the Shits. The shits'll kill the Sunnis if they can, the Sunnis will kill the shits if they can. Why stop them? Close off the borders here, make trade standards a little more secure, and let the bastards go Khmer Rouge all they want. No snot off our nose, its not our fault. Its their fault for living like barbarians.

[6SpeedTA95]

Originally Posted by Dharma Bum

I think the war in Iraq would've happened no matter what. If Clinton had gotten four more years, if Gore had been elected, whatever. Saddam liked to tempt us. Seventeen cease fire violations. U.N. corruption scandal. And we have independent reports that Iraq would be where Iran is now if we didn't go in, due to the fact the sanctions would've ended a while ago.

Democrats supported the war, not only when it started, but years before it started. Not just the oddball like Lieberman, but names, big names. Hillary Clinton compared the invasion of Iraq to the bombing of Kosovo. Thing is, we went in with the idea that, if we free these people, life'll be better for us. We didn't know that the Iraqi people would be fucking savages. Thus the casualty count is somewhere around 150k for civilians according to the U.N., and 600k according to bleeding heart anti-war filthy hippies. If the casualty count was 600k, there wouldn't be an insurgency. We're not fighting a war there any more, we're policing civilians, with no uniform. How bad can you feel when you hear about a U.S. bomb hitting a house full of civilians when its civilians who are bombing U.S. soldiers? Not much.

Now, we leave, we throw the country to either the Sunnis or the Shits. The shits'll kill the Sunnis if they can, the Sunnis will kill the shits if they can. Why stop them? Close off the borders here, make trade standards a little more secure, and let the bastards go Khmer Rouge all they want. No snot off our nose, its not our fault. Its their fault for living like barbarians.

Welcome to the board

But lets try to not upset folks "bleeding heart anti war filthy hippies"

[Dharma Bum]

Tongue firmly in cheek. I know that they bathe and have no hearts.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Originally Posted by David Octavius

I think it is time to draw a line between the “war on terror”, which our great soldiers are fighting in Afghanistan and George’s war, which our great soldiers are fighting in Iraq.

Now hindsight is indeed 20-20 but looking back, Iraq should not have been a priority if our object was fighting terror against Americans, there are plenty of degenerates that are higher on that scale and much more of a threat than Iraq was at that time – if at all. Whatever else you want to say about it is fine but again looking back and measuring strictly against whether this was initially part of the “war on terror” it should be clear is was not. The fact that is has since morphed into part of it, is a consequence of the Administrations actions and since it headed by George W Bush, I have to call it George’s war. It was his administrations reasoning’s and evidence that got us into it and his decisions that steering the direction of it. No one was thinking about Iraq until he brought it up, none of the hijackers who attacked us were Iraqis, there was absolutely no connection whatsoever. We went to war because it was his will – and the idiot democrats and republicans that gave him a blank check to do what he wants.

The “war on terror” is different, we went into Afghanistan to get the group that is directly linked to terror, unfortunately, George’s war has taken the resources this war needs to get bin laden and put it into Iraq.

These two wars are different, Afghanistan gave us the moral high ground to protect our people and secure our liberty, the war in Iraq took away all those good things and may make us less secure if George continues to make wrong choices in his war.

What we do from here is anyone's guess, no one knows for certain what will work, George's war really put us in a pickle

It was Clinton's war before Bush but ole slick willie was too busy getting personal attention from female admirers!
Clinton had the same info before Bush, stated just about the same facts about Saddam being a threat which must be removed.
Difference is that AFTER 9/11 it became even more necessary to take action .
George Bush is the President of the United States of America so its "our" war whether you like it or not.-TZS

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by Dharma Bum

we have independent reports that Iraq would be where Iran is now if we didn't go in, due to the fact the sanctions would've ended a while ago.

I would love to see a link to those.

They had no capability to produce WMD.

Originally Posted by Dharma Bum

Thing is, we went in with the idea that, if we free these people, life'll be better for us. We didn't know that the Iraqi people would be fucking savages.

This is wrong.
We did not go there to free those people. We went there to eliminate someone who we though (through false/cherry-picked intelligence) was an immediate threat to us. That turned out to be totally wrong. I don't think congress or the American people got a real view leading up to the war. I believe this administration only showed intel that would make us believe Iraq was an immediate threat and supressed intel that showed he wasn't. PNAC wanted into Iraq all along. That was one of the reasons we had difficulty getting many of our allies to go along with us.

[Dharma Bum]

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

I would love to see a link to those.

They had no capability to produce WMD.

Read the Charles Dulfer Report and the David Kay reports. They're both publically available through the CIA website. Both say that there were no stockpiles of weapons, but that Iraq was hanging on to resources and brain power to restart the program after the sanctions ended. Also read The Bomb in My Garden by Mahdi Obeidi, one of Hussein's chief nuclear scientists, which details twenty years of how Saddam Hussein was trying to go nuclear, and verifies a lot that was in the Dulfer and Kay reports.

This is wrong.
We did not go there to free those people. We went there to eliminate someone who we though (through false/cherry-picked intelligence) was an immediate threat to us. That turned out to be totally wrong. I don't think congress or the American people got a real view leading up to the war. I believe this administration only showed intel that would make us believe Iraq was an immediate threat and supressed intel that showed he wasn't. PNAC wanted into Iraq all along. That was one of the reasons we had difficulty getting many of our allies to go along with us.

I'd like to refer you to this page. Read the post by "Vindicating Angel" and note the date. Those were my thoughts on the Iraq War years ago. Notice not a single mention of "WMD" in the entire rant. I'm very sure that I wasn't the only one thinking that way at the time. First successes of the war - they weren't showing armies surrendering and weapons depots being raided, which they would've if the main and only goal of the war was to find WMDs. It was that big statue of Saddam getting tipped over with an Iraqi flag over his face, then people dragging the head through the streets beating it with their shoe. I have, however, changed my mind about the Iraqi people since that post in March 2003, but don't you try and tell me I was "brainwashed by the gub'ment 'cuz I too stupid to resist war for corporate profits and oil theft and Karl Rove is teh DEVIL for making me vote for GORG DOUBLE YOU BUSCH!" Especially when Clinton went in to Kosovo for purely humanitarian reasons and nobody said jack to him, just a few Jay Leno jokes about how he was trying to get attention away from Monica Lewinksy by bombing Slavs to save "ethnic Albanians," aka, the Muslims. And Clinton hit Iraq in 1998, again: Nobody said jack about oil. The only way that I was fooled during the Iraq escalation was by the taqiyya by the Sunnis and Shia. JAM can go to Hell and they can take Baghdad with them for all I care now.

[thatguyoverthere]

Originally Posted by Dharma Bum

Tongue firmly in cheek. I know that they bathe and have no hearts.

lol

You're only half right! We have hearts, just not brains & courage!

Welcome to the board!

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by Dharma Bum

I'd like to refer you to this page. Read the post by "Vindicating Angel" and note the date. Those were my thoughts on the Iraq War years ago. Notice not a single mention of "WMD" in the entire rant. I'm very sure that I wasn't the only one thinking that way at the time. First successes of the war - they weren't showing armies surrendering and weapons depots being raided, which they would've if the main and only goal of the war was to find WMDs. It was that big statue of Saddam getting tipped over with an Iraqi flag over his face, then people dragging the head through the streets beating it with their shoe. I have, however, changed my mind about the Iraqi people since that post in March 2003, but don't you try and tell me I was "brainwashed by the gub'ment 'cuz I too stupid to resist war for corporate profits and oil theft and Karl Rove is teh DEVIL for making me vote for GORG DOUBLE YOU BUSCH!" Especially when Clinton went in to Kosovo for purely humanitarian reasons and nobody said jack to him, just a few Jay Leno jokes about how he was trying to get attention away from Monica Lewinksy by bombing Slavs to save "ethnic Albanians," aka, the Muslims. And Clinton hit Iraq in 1998, again: Nobody said jack about oil. The only way that I was fooled during the Iraq escalation was by the taqiyya by the Sunnis and Shia. JAM can go to Hell and they can take Baghdad with them for all I care now.

It doesn't matter what you thought or what I thought. The Authorization for use of force clearly outlines the reasons why we went into Iraq.

Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq

Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq's war of aggression against and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the national security of the United States and enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;

Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism;

Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;

Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;

Whereas in 1998 Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in "material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations" and urged the President "to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations" (Public Law 105-235);

Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolutions of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;

Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;

Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of American citizens;

Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001 underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself;

Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687, repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688, and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949;

Whereas Congress in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) has authorized the President "to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolutions 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677";

Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it "supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1)," that Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and "constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region," and that Congress, "supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688";

Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;

Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United States to "work with the United Nations Security Council to meet our common challenge" posed by Iraq and to "work for the necessary resolutions," while also making clear that "the Security Council resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and security will be met, or action will be unavoidable";

Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary;

Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001 or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and

Whereas it is in the national security of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region;

Now, therefore, be it resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SEC. 1. SHORT TITLE.

This joint resolution may be cited as the "Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq".

SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS

The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to--

(a) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions applicable to Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and

(b) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions.

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) AUTHORIZATION. The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and

(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq.

(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION.

In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon there after as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq, and

(2) acting pursuant to this resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorists attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

(c) WAR POWERS RESOLUTION REQUIREMENTS. --

(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION. -- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.

(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS. -- Nothing in this resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

SEC. 4. REPORTS TO CONGRESS

(a) The President shall, at least once every 60 days, submit to the Congress a report on matters relevant to this joint resolution, including actions taken pursuant to the exercise of authority granted in section 2 and the status of planning for efforts that are expected to be required after such actions are completed, including those actions described in section 7 of Public Law 105-338 (the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998).

(b) To the extent that the submission of any report described in subsection (a) coincides with the submission of any other report on matters relevant to this joint resolution otherwise required to be submitted to Congress pursuant to the reporting requirements of Public Law 93-148 (the War Powers Resolution), all such reports may be submitted as a single consolidated report to the Congress.

(c) To the extent that the information required by section 3 of Public Law 102-1 is included in the report required by this section, such report shall be considered as meeting the requirements of section 3 of Public Law 102-1.

The freedom of the Iraqi people is not even mentioned in there.
It is not a reason we went to war. It was a political red herring once they realized ever reason we had was false.

[Dharma Bum]

If you're going to say that every reason we invaded Iraq was wrong, you need to break that authorization for use of force thing down point by point and prove each and every single one was wrong. Because they were right about almost all of that.

You know, John Stewart had a bit on The Daily Show that lasted for weeks after Condoleeza Rice was being grilled by congress, I think about the 9/11 Commission Report. Apparently, President Bush had been delivered a memo wherein one of the subheadiings was "Osama bin Laden to launch attack on U.S." or something blaringly obvious like that, and he didn't do anything about it that Clinton didn't. Stewart was shocked, SHOCKED that President Bush did nothing to stop 9/11 and wanted to read about a donkey to a kindergarten class. Then he went on to criticize President Bush for invading Iraq, when he was getting hit with the French, Russian, English and American intelligence agencies saying Iraq was a threat, Iraq was violating U.N. resolution after U.N. resolution, violated cease fires and attacked U.S. and U.N. soldiers, and yeah, they were harboring terrorist organizations. Talk about a double standard! President Bush ignores a vague subheading on a scrap of paper, we lose 3000 people, its Bush's fault. President takes every major intelligence agency in the world seriously and its "HOW DARE THAT CHIMPY McCOKESPOON COMMIT A CRUSADE ON ARABS SO THAT HALIBURTON CAN GET OIL!"

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by Dharma Bum

If you're going to say that every reason we invaded Iraq was wrong, you need to break that authorization for use of force thing down point by point and prove each and every single one was wrong. Because they were right about almost all of that.

You know, John Stewart had a bit on The Daily Show that lasted for weeks after Condoleeza Rice was being grilled by congress, I think about the 9/11 Commission Report. Apparently, President Bush had been delivered a memo wherein one of the subheadiings was "Osama bin Laden to launch attack on U.S." or something blaringly obvious like that, and he didn't do anything about it that Clinton didn't. Stewart was shocked, SHOCKED that President Bush did nothing to stop 9/11 and wanted to read about a donkey to a kindergarten class. Then he went on to criticize President Bush for invading Iraq, when he was getting hit with the French, Russian, English and American intelligence agencies saying Iraq was a threat, Iraq was violating U.N. resolution after U.N. resolution, violated cease fires and attacked U.S. and U.N. soldiers, and yeah, they were harboring terrorist organizations. Talk about a double standard! President Bush ignores a vague subheading on a scrap of paper, we lose 3000 people, its Bush's fault. President takes every major intelligence agency in the world seriously and its "HOW DARE THAT CHIMPY McCOKESPOON COMMIT A CRUSADE ON ARABS SO THAT HALIBURTON CAN GET OIL!"

I can't find the article at the moment, but the main source of the intel we used was someone the intelligence comminity did not trust or believe. We chose to because it suited out needs.

Iraq was not harboring terror organizations and Saddam hated fundies. He would never allow something like that in his country for fear of being overthrown.

And you cannot tie Iraq into 9/11. Stewart may have been critical over the lack of security during 9/11, but the answer was never to invade Iraq. Most people who are against the war in Iraq and not against the war on terror. We just don't see the two as being the same thing. There weren't terrorists in Iraq until we invaded. Bad men? Yes. Terrorists? No. We turn a blind eye to areas with many terror groups such as Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. The invasion of Iraq was something they wanted as soon at the WTC attacks happened. Read Richard Clarkes book about how Rummy pulled him aside and told him to find a way to blame this on Iraq.