Does this not piss you off?!

[akamifeldman]

It means we ignored the real imminent threat while sacking Iraq.
Four More Years!

 

[TurnandBurn55]

Great post HueyCobra... took the words out of my mouth.

You guys keep missing the fact that the WMD issue was merely the focal point of a much larger problem in Iraq.

Many people criticized Bush 41 for not 'going all the way' in Gulf War, Part One. Ultimately, we decided to let Saddam off relatively easily when we COULD have gone straight to Baghdad then.

This is a guy who had invaded Iran, invaded Kuwait, dodged the IAEA, used chemical weapons on the Kurds, launched ballistic missiles at Israel... not to mention being a sadistic dictator (anyone read what his sons did to Olympic athletes?) In Early '91, the coalition could well have decided 'this guy has caused enough problems-- lets dump him now', and there wouldn't be half as many people whining about it.

The world gave him a last chance. It was a 'cooperate or else' issue as detailed in 687. You get rid of your missiles, you get rid of your WMDs, you prove to us beyond doubt that you're no longer a threat to everyone else... hey, you're clear.

He didn't do that. Hussein Kamal proved in '96 he didn't do that. The dude interfering with inspections for 13 years proved he didn't do that. 1441 proved he didn't do that. The French, the Russians, the Brits, and us... we all know he didn't do that. There was never any question he didn't live up to his end of the agreement.

Somehow, though... we've come upon two wonderful excuses for logical arguments:

a) The fact that he blew his end of the agreement so subtly and so long means that he now gets a free pass.
b) The fact that other countries are doing things that would blow the terms of their agreement with the UN... if they had signed onto one... means that Iraq shouldn't hafta adhere to theirs.

We offered Saddam the easy way out. He didn't want the easy way out. OK, he was able to weasel the thin line for 13 years... now he gets the hard way. Fine by me.

Our war on Iraq has further destablized an already unstable region

A 'region', eh? So where else in this 'region' is there destabilization? Looks to me like the country of Iraq is destablized... sad how that happens when you dump a dictator... but I don't see any other parts of the 'region' that are becoming unstable...

Sounds like more left-wing hysteria to me about nothing...

 

[makana]

It means we ignored the real imminent threat while sacking Iraq.
Four More Years!

I love how Bush gets blamed for not invading Iran due to their WMDs but it was not Bush that lifted sanctions on Iran. No, it was done by the illustrious Clinton administration. Bush simply had the balls enough to ignore a paper tiger of an international organization, including its members who stood to lose face and lots of money by our plan for war, all in the name of enforcing resolutions that the same international organization agreed upon in the first place. And 51% of the country realizes that we do need four more years!

 

[Jolly Roger]

Who did we fight our first war against as the United States against? The French in the Quasi War. We kicked their ass, at least the Navy did since it was a naval war. Don't forget their aide to the South during the Civil War, in the form of the commerce raiders. Thier opposition to NATO and their trade policies, during the 2nd Napoleonic War, greased the path to war with Britain. So, France has not been ally to the US for the past 200 years. they have only been an ally of the US for about 25 years over a 200 year history.

 

[VetteMuscle427]

They're an ally when it is profitable to them.

 

[Jolly Roger]

They're an ally when it is profitable to them.

Yeah, what was it Churchill said? "There are no perminant allies, only perminant interests."

 

[Clux4]

Quote TurnandBurn55,
"Many people criticized Bush 41 for not 'going all the way' in Gulf War, Part One. Ultimately, we decided to let Saddam off relatively easily when we COULD have gone straight to Baghdad then"

Let me say that the reason Bush 41 did not go forward in 91 is because he did not have a way out. (The Porterybarn rule i.e you break it you own it.) and not because he was trying to give Saddam a second chance.
I should also say that there are 2 different kind of conservatives in the Republican part, the neoconservatives and the liberal conservatives. Bush 43 is a neo his father is a liberal con. Not every republican believes in the ongoing war ! That explains Powell, Conda liza, Bush

 

[Alex]

I think you need to reread your history books. I will break down the big stuff though.

S/RES/678 = US Ceasefire with Iraq in 1991
S/RES/687 = Stipulation that if rules are broken (Americans attacked, WMD obtained, IAEA not allowed access, etc...), then S/RES/678 is nullified
...Yadda yadda yadda, 16 resolutions detailing Saddam's intransigence with regard to weapons inspectors...
...Yadda yadda yadda Several Americans attacked in the no fly zone...
...Yadda yadda yadda Iraq put on the US State Department's list of Nations that Sponsor Terrorism in 1993 (where it remained until 2003)...
...Yadda yadda yadda Attempted assassination of former President...
...And don't forget attempted bombing of the World Trade Center...
which brings us to:
S/RES/1441 = Entire world unanimously agreeing that Saddam had WMD and calling for "grave consequences" if he did not comply with inspectors/previous resolutions.

Saddam failed to comply with 1441, the UN failed to act. As we now know, much of that was probably due to the fact that Kofi Anon was lining his pockets with kickbacks and the French and Russians were selling weapons like it was going out of style.

Excellent points. I agree with everything you have outlined here, namely that Saddam represented a credible threat to the US. However, the problem is that our military successfully removed that threat and yet we continue to carry out operations in Iraq. My reading of the Congressional authorization to wage war was that it granted authorization to remove the threat that Iraq posed and to ensure compliance with UN security council resolutions. We've removed the threat and determined that Iraq is not violating the UN resolutions. I say give the boys a well deserved Bravo Zulu and get the hell out. Nothing in the Congressional authorization says we are to engage in nation building.

Edited to add: One very minor nitpick. It wasn't the entire world, or even the entire UN calling for "grave consequences" for Saddam's failure to comply. It was just the 15 members of the UN Security Council. Still, getting all 15 to agree was a major diplomatic coup.

 

[Cate]

Excellent points. I agree with everything you have outlined here, namely that Saddam represented a credible threat to the US. However, the problem is that our military successfully removed that threat and yet we continue to carry out operations in Iraq. My reading of the Congressional authorization to wage war was that it granted authorization to remove the threat that Iraq posed and to ensure compliance with UN security council resolutions. We've removed the threat and determined that Iraq is not violating the UN resolutions. I say give the boys a well deserved Bravo Zulu and get the hell out. Nothing in the Congressional authorization says we are to engage in nation building.

It's a nice sentiment, but it absolutely can't happen. Right now, for better or worse, US military presence is the only thing propping up any semblance of stability in the Middle East. Bit by bit, we're teaching Iraqis to take care of Iraq, but until they're completely ready to do it on their own, our guys have to be there to hold it together. President Bush spoke of a "flypaper" strategy to bring terrorist elements out where we could get to them - now that they're out, they have to be addressed, or we're back where we started, if not worse off.

 

[VetteMuscle427]

I 100% Agree with Cate. Think of it like this... Do we want to fight terrorism in Iraq, using Marines and Soldiers? Or do we want to fight it on our streets using firefighters and police?

 

[Alex]

Personally, I'd like to see resources devoted to hunting down the terrorists in Afghanistan. I believe there might still be some unfinished business there. But, for whatever reasons, the administration has determined that Afghanistan is not the priority that it once was.

 

[Slammer2]

Personally, I'd like to see resources devoted to hunting down the terrorists in Afghanistan. I believe there might still be some unfinished business there. But, for whatever reasons, the administration has determined that Afghanistan is not the priority that it once was.

I didn't realize that our military had quit looking for bad guys in Afghanistan. And we are more than capable of fighting on two fronts simultaneously. You shouldn't think that because we are fighting in Iraq that we have pulled the plug on everything else. When did the administration say that we stopped looking for terrorists? Must have missed that episode of CNN...

 

[Alex]

I don't know if CNN covered it, but the Associated Press did. From an AP article dated 14MAR02:

Shortly after the Sept. 11 attacks, Bush said he wanted bin Laden "dead or alive." Since then, as bin Laden vanished and the war progressed, Bush shifted his message, saying the war was about more than one man.

Bush took that rhetoric to new territory in a news conference Wednesday, saying of the al-Qaida leader: "I truly am not that concerned about him.

"I am deeply concerned about Iraq, and so should the American people be concerned about Iraq, and so should people who love freedom be concerned about Iraq," Bush said.

For the reasons that have been discussed above, President Bush decided to make Iraq a higher priority. Unfortunately, despite having achieved the objectives that were laid out in the Congressional authorization, President Bush has taken on the additional task of nation building in Iraq, spending resources, money and men that could be used to support the limited forces in Afghanistan. Instead, the coalition forces in Afghanistan (roughly 10% the size of the forces in Iraq, which is especially ironic when you realize that geographically, Afghanistan is nearly 50% larger than Iraq) are forced to undertake a mission that could benefit from additional manpower and resources.

 

[Slammer2]

I don't know if CNN covered it, but the Associated Press did.

haha....sorry dude. just taking a jab at CNN



My main point was that just because we've taken on other tasks (now that an understatement) it dosen mean that we've quit our other stuff. I'm sure if we get intell that gives us the opportunity to kill the bastard (and I mean bin-laden not Bush, for all you haters out there ) we'd take him out. But anyhow, even if we were doing absolutely nothing else with our military, I dont think that we'd send all of the "extra" forces back to afghanistan.

I hear what you're sayin, but when I read the comment "But, for whatever reasons, the administration has determined that Afghanistan is not the priority that it once was." it seems like you're saying we're not doing anything there anymore.


By the way...what part of Ohio are you from? (PM me if you dont want that public)

 

[HueyCobra8151]

Good points all.

The idea that we should have removed Saddam and left is a little suspect I think. The ensuing instability would have had a dramatic impact on that region. It was already said, but picture all the weapons and ammunition that are currently being used by insurgents in Iraq, being used elsewhere, x10! (Figure that we are guarding/destroying many of the major stockpiles that otherwise would be "fair game." [/Yes I realize you are going to say something about Al QaQa])

As for the comments about Bin Ladin, I cannot guess to Bush's motives or reasoning. However, IMO, this has never really been about OBL. After 11 September, the American public needed a bad guy to pin it on. But do you truly think that if we took out OBL today, the terrorists would throw down their guns and go join greenpeace or something?

OBL is just a figurehead, the roots of terrorism stem alot deeper.

As for Afghanistan, we still have as many troops there as we did before, we have more in Iraq, but we need more in Iraq.