Justification for Removing Saddam

[adios]

I thought these statements about say it all regarding the justification of removing Saddam from power:

He has supported and harbored terrorist groups...

There is no question that Saddam Hussein represents a threat. . . .

Who can say that this master of miscalculation will not develop a weapon of mass destruction even greater -- a nuclear weapon. . . .

And while the administration has failed to provide any direct link between Iraq and the events of September 11, can we afford to ignore the possibility that Saddam Hussein might accidentally, as well as purposely, allow those weapons to slide off to one group or other in a region where weapons are the currency of trade? How do we leave that to chance? ...

[Chris Alger]

You guys need to work a lot harder to convince the billion or so potential terrorists out there that wiping out the U.S. is a bad idea. In this case, you're saying that the same reasons that justify the U.S. takeover of Iraq are those that justify any country's takeover of the U.S.: harboring terrorists, threatening other countries, masterfully miscalculating. After all, how can anyone afford to take the chance that the U.S. might accidentally nuke someone or allow its nuclear technology to "slide off" to someone else, or even nuke them on purpose (again)?

Actually, the case against the U.S. is quite a bit stronger. Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction; the U.S. has thousands. It can deliver them to every corner of the globe almost immediately. Iraq is responsible for two acts of military intervention; the U.S. military has killed hundreds of thousands and perhaps millions of civilians in more than a dozen countries in the last few decades (Vietnam, Laos, Dominican Republic, Grenada, Nicaragua, Panama, Colombia, El Salvador, Somalia, Kosovo, Sudan, Iraq), not counting its mere lethal aid for mass slaughters by Indonesia, Guatemala, Israel, among others. Saddam couldn't even "invade" all of Iraq. The U.S. is determined to plant military bases all over Central Asia, adding to its collection of 700+ foreign military bases and facilities. And while it's true that Saddam was a ruthless tyrant, the U.S. is run by a cabal of pathological liars and headed by a incoherent moron. On that last one, maybe it's a coin flip.

So why don't you make your argument to ordinary people elsehwere who believe, as does most of the world, that the U.S. lives in infamy because of its unprovoked attack against Iraq. See how many of them believe that this thing "says it all."

[ACPlayer]

Give it up pal. Even MMMMMM has quit saying that there was any threat to the US and this was all about "strategic interests". [Watch out here comes another torrent of words that say nothing from the Master of Misdirection Maliciously Manipulating Mendacious Mumbo-jumbo)

1000+ US lives, 15000+ Iraqi lives(do they count?), Billions of dollars, many new terrorist recruits, removal of one of the few secular Arab Govts. Well at least Sharon and the bonus recipients at Haliburton are happy with our performance.

[nicky g]

"one of the few secular Arab Govts"

Most Arab governments are secular.

[MMMMMM]

"So why don't you make your argument to ordinary people elsehwere who believe, as does most of the world, that the U.S. lives in infamy because of its unprovoked attack against Iraq."

Unprovoked my ass. Countless violations of the cease-fire agreement; an attempt on Bush Sr.'s life; eternal thwarting and avoidance of agreed upon inspections; financial support and encouragement for suicide bombes in Israel; relentless anti-aircraft firings on US planes enforcing the agreed upon no-fly zones.

Unprovoked. R-i-i-i-g-h-t.

[MMMMMM]

Yeah, secular dictatorships. Kick 'em all out of the U.N. until they become democracies.

[MMMMMM]

Actually, ACPlayer, I do think it was more about strategic interests than about any immediate threat to the U.S.

However I do think there is also some value in pre-empting certain potential future threats, especially given the nature of certain individuals or regimes.

[ACPlayer]

The friends of our enemies are our enemies.

Lets start by kicking the friends of the Suadi dicatotors, who have contributed directly to the 9/11 atrocities out of their white house.

[MMMMMM]

ALL of 'em, ACPLayer!

[ACPlayer]

I am glad we agree on two things now.

So, how about a contribution to help John Kerry beat Bush? I can give you his web site if you like. That is one positive thing you can do in the war on terror. DO IT!!!!!

[MMMMMM]

Thanks anyway but I'm voting Libertarian this year.

[adios]

So I guess you won't be voting for Kerry /images/graemlins/smile.gif.

A scathing Washington Post editorial yesterday:

Mr. Kerry and Iraq (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A17019-2004Sep12.html)

Mr. Kerry and Iraq

Monday, September 13, 2004; Page A20

THE AGONIZING difficulties in Iraq give rise to two legitimate questions: Was the war a mistake, and what is to be done now? The second is the more vital, but both are important subjects for the campaign. President Bush has unambiguous answers. He believes the war was right and necessary, and he maintains that his plan of training Iraqi forces while facilitating elections will help Iraq move toward stability and democracy. Both positions are subject to challenge, and we will be returning to them in future editorials. But it isn't clear where Sen. John F. Kerry stands on either point.

Mr. Kerry got pretty badly battered by friend and foe alike a couple of weeks back when he said he would still, knowing everything he knows now, have voted to authorize war in Iraq. Democratic partisans couldn't understand why Mr. Kerry wouldn't just attack the war forthrightly; Republicans said he was flip-flopping again, or negating his criticism of the war, or both. We were more sympathetic, maybe because as an editorial page we found ourselves in a similarly nuanced position. Like Mr. Kerry, we believed in 2002 that it was essential to hold Saddam Hussein accountable for his failure to honor U.N. resolutions; also like Mr. Kerry, we criticized Mr. Bush for not trying harder to recruit allies and for not preparing for, and warning Americans of, the likely difficulties of postwar reconstruction. But we expected that chemical and biological weapons would be found, and we failed to expect a long and bloody insurgency, even though some experts warned of it; we were wrong on both counts.

Was the war justified, even with all its faults of implementation, with the insurgency and although no weapons have been found? In our view the answer is partly unknowable, because no one knows how Saddam Hussein would have behaved if left to run his country, and partly knowable, only after we see how things evolve in Iraq. But we believe that Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) was right when he said, at the Republican convention, that the choice in Iraq "wasn't between a benign status quo and the bloodshed of war" but "between war and a graver threat" -- that the consensus behind sanctions had eroded and that Saddam Hussein, freed from international pressure, would have rebuilt his arsenal. Or, as Mr. Kerry said on Oct. 9, 2002, in his speech explaining his vote to authorize military action, "It would be naive to the point of grave danger not to believe that, left to his own devices, Saddam Hussein will provoke, misjudge or stumble into a future, more dangerous confrontation with the civilized world."

We don't want to mischaracterize Mr. Kerry's speech, which also stressed the importance of working through the United Nations and which said that only disarming Saddam Hussein -- and not liberating Iraq from an appalling dictator, however welcome that would be -- could justify a war. But given Mr. Kerry's recent statements, it's worth recalling how he saw the strategic picture. "He has supported and harbored terrorist groups," he said. "There is no question that Saddam Hussein represents a threat. . . . Who can say that this master of miscalculation will not develop a weapon of mass destruction even greater -- a nuclear weapon. . . . And while the administration has failed to provide any direct link between Iraq and the events of September 11, can we afford to ignore the possibility that Saddam Hussein might accidentally, as well as purposely, allow those weapons to slide off to one group or other in a region where weapons are the currency of trade? How do we leave that to chance?"

Now Mr. Kerry says that Iraq was "the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time." What does that mean? He says that Mr. Bush should have given the weapons inspectors more time to work. But once they reported that they had found no caches, would Mr. Kerry's view of the dangers of leaving Saddam Hussein "to his own devices" have changed? And if not, how would he have handled what he described as the threat posed by Saddam Hussein and his possible ties to terrorists?

Mr. Kerry says he would lead U.S. policy in Iraq in a new direction. That would consist of persuading allies to pay more of the costs and assume more of the risks of occupation; and training more Iraqi soldiers and police officers and training them faster and better. This would be "the right way to get the job done and bring our troops home." But allies are not going to shoulder this burden; they are falling short even in Afghanistan, a war they supported from the start. It's not clear how Iraqis can be trained faster or better than Gen. David H. Petraeus is doing now. And Mr. Kerry no longer says what "the job" really means.

At this point, the candidate seems to be trying to give the impression that he is opposed to the war, without actually saying so. He talks about bringing troops home in six months but resists pressure, including within his own campaign, to commit to such a withdrawal. It is to his credit that he resists taking such an irresponsible position. But his stance does not help Americans understand where he would really lead the nation and U.S. troops in Iraq.

In 2002, Mr. Kerry warned that "if we go it alone without reason, we risk inflaming an entire region, breeding a new generation of terrorists, a new cadre of anti-American zealots, and we will be less secure, not more secure, at the end of the day, even with Saddam Hussein disarmed." Those words now resonate as evidence of a wiser caution than the administration displayed. But Mr. Kerry also said that, if the United States did go to war, "we will have an obligation, ultimately, to the Iraqi people with whom we are not at war. . . . That effort is going to be long term, costly and not without difficulty, given Iraq's ethnic and religious divisions and history of domestic turbulence . . . we must be prepared to stay the course over however many years it takes to do it right."

We believe that position was and remains correct. The question is whether Mr. Kerry still agrees with it.

Yow ought to go to work for CBS.

[MaxPower]

As Ned Flanders would say, "Sounds like your strainin' to do some explainin'."

Even Utah admitted yesterday that the Iraq war was a mistake. Using logic such as this we can justify regime change in dozens of countries. Meanwhile we are distracting ourselves from the real national security issues.

[nicky g]

"Yeah, secular dictatorships. Kick 'em all out of the U.N. until they become democracies."

I think there is some merit to the idea of UN weighting voting rights depending on democratisation, human rights situations, levels of agression etc; although who gets put in charge of deciding on those issues would be virtually impossible to solve. Weighting on population size might also be a decent idea, as would getting rid of or drastically reforming the security council.

[Utah]

Hi Adios,

Respectfully, its not enough. The WMD issue is huge.

You cant take a country to war on a premise and then say that premise is false but the overall result is good so everything is okay.

[vulturesrow]

Prove to me that Bush lied about WMD and I might be swayed. Fact is, he acted on the best intel available at the time. The fact that a country clearly hostile to the US might be have or be in the process of obtaining WMD, is good enough for me. Other measures were attempted and were unsuccessful.

[Rooster71]

[ QUOTE ]
The fact that a country clearly hostile to the US might be have or be in the process of obtaining WMD, is good enough for me.

[/ QUOTE ]
OK...considering the number of Arab countries that have a general hatred of the US, you could call them "hostile." So which country will we invade next? They "might" or "might be" wanting to obtain nukes.

[adios]

Kerry made all the statements that I posted in bold. Why are you voting for him then? I expect the typical knee jerk Kerry defense. CBS should have some job openings pretty soon.

[MMMMMM]

Well they better not try to get them, then.

[adios]

Kerry made the statements I posted. If they're lies they'e Kerry lies.

[Rooster71]

[ QUOTE ]
I thought these statements about say it all regarding the justification of removing Saddam from power:

He has supported and harbored terrorist groups...

There is no question that Saddam Hussein represents a threat. . . .

Who can say that this master of miscalculation will not develop a weapon of mass destruction even greater -- a nuclear weapon. . . .

And while the administration has failed to provide any direct link between Iraq and the events of September 11, can we afford to ignore the possibility that Saddam Hussein might accidentally, as well as purposely, allow those weapons to slide off to one group or other in a region where weapons are the currency of trade? How do we leave that to chance? ...


[/ QUOTE ]
The 19 terrorists who carried out the 9/11 attacks had more involvement with Iran, Egypt, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia than Iraq. So given the terrorist ties to these countries, why is Iraq so important?

For that matter, can you give any examples of where Iraq has been involved in terrorism to an extent greater than that of Iran, Egypt or Saudi Arabia?

[adios]

Get in your application for CBS.

[MMMMMM]

Rooster,

The point is that with troops in Iraq, we are well-positioned to do whatever might need doing in the other countries you mention at some future point. Add Syria. And as a side benefit, Saddam won't be restarting his WMD programs anytime soon.

[Rooster71]

[ QUOTE ]
Yeah, secular dictatorships. Kick 'em all out of the U.N. until they become democracies.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is the exact type of statement one would expect from a Bush supporter.

[Utah]

I dont think he lied at all. I believe he operated on the best of intentions with concern to the WMD.

Please dont lump me in with the WMD lie/hate Bush crowd. However, I do have a problem with the WMD issue. The country went to war on a false premise for whatever. That is a bad thing isnt it? I am not so ready to accept the, "well, Saddam was bad" argument as a substitute.

[Rooster71]

[ QUOTE ]
Actually, ACPlayer, I do think it was more about strategic interests than about any immediate threat to the U.S.

However I do think there is also some value in pre-empting certain potential future threats, especially given the nature of certain individuals or regimes.

[/ QUOTE ]
Pre-empting certain threats makes sense under the right circumstances. But for this idea to work, there has to actually be a plan in place. Saddam ran such an intimidating and brutal regime that it would very unlikely that any possible power rivals such as al Quaeda would try to form in Iraq under his watch. Yea, there were a few in Iraq, but there are also a few in most every other country. From my point of view, it is much easier to keep an eye on a brutal dictator than it is to try to keep an eye on a totally lawless country where any type of terror group can easily form.

[MMMMMM]

Can you explain the moral rationale behind allowing dictatorships to vote in the U.N., when they don't even represent their own people?

If the U.N. is supposed to represent the countries of the world, then the governments of those countries to the U.N. must be themselves representative as well. Only the democratic process will suffice for that. Otherwise you have people supposedly representing countries who are simply NOT AT ALL representative of those countries.

Doesn't it rather defeat much of the purpose of the idea behind voting, if the representatives are not elected, but rather rule their own people by force and terror?

I will presume that you are not an apologist for totalitarian dictatorships.

[Rooster71]

[ QUOTE ]
Rooster,

The point is that with troops in Iraq, we are well-positioned to do whatever might need doing in the other countries you mention at some future point. Add Syria. And as a side benefit, Saddam won't be restarting his WMD programs anytime soon.

[/ QUOTE ]
I forgot Syria. But the strategic idea does makes some sense. However, I think much more could be done here at home to possibly prevent future terror attacks.

[MMMMMM]

You might be right about that, Rooster.

[MaxPower]

[ QUOTE ]
Kerry made all the statements that I posted in bold. Why are you voting for him then? I expect the typical knee jerk Kerry defense. CBS should have some job openings pretty soon.

[/ QUOTE ]

I will not defend him. I don't know what intellengence Kerry was allowed to see and what he knew about its veracity. In addition, Kerry has not articulated his position on this war clearly.

Despite what people suggest there was plenty of doubt as to whether Saddam had WMD. Colin Powell's speech at the UN convinced many sceptical Americans that they did. Now Powell is admitting that the sourcing for his speech was questionable. That is no excuse. He should have done the due diligence on the intelligence before presenting it.

Powell says some in US intelligence knew sourcing on Iraq was suspect (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20040913/pl_afp/us_iraq_weapons_040913223212)

If I were making a speech to the entire world, I might actually bother to check my sources out.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
If the U.N. is supposed to represent the countries of the world, then the governments of those countries to the U.N. must be themselves representative as well

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see how this necessarily follows. If the UN is supposed to represent the Countries of the world (as opposed to the People of the World) it makes sense to have government representatives regardless of the type of government.

[superleeds]

[ QUOTE ]
Can you explain the moral rationale behind allowing dictatorships to vote in the U.N., when they don't even represent their own people?

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you explain the moral rationale behind allowing certain countries veto.

[ QUOTE ]
If the U.N. is supposed to represent the countries of the world

[/ QUOTE ]

An absurd idea

[MMMMMM]

Elwood,

You are taking my remark out of context, though perhaps I should have been more clear.

If you go back to the initial paragraph in my post, you will see that I was looking for clarification of the moral rationale, not the practical rationale.

[Rooster71]

[ QUOTE ]
Can you explain the moral rationale behind allowing dictatorships to vote in the U.N., when they don't even represent their own people?

If the U.N. is supposed to represent the countries of the world, then the governments of those countries to the U.N. must be themselves representative as well. Only the democratic process will suffice for that. Otherwise you have people supposedly representing countries who are simply NOT AT ALL representative of those countries.

Doesn't it rather defeat much of the purpose of the idea behind voting, if the representatives are not elected, but rather rule their own people by force and terror?

I will presume that you are not an apologist for totalitarian dictatorships.

[/ QUOTE ]
Honestly, I don't think that morals have alot to do with allowing these countries to vote. This is a really sticky issue for many reasons. I see your point and I think these countries should be unable to participate in the UN if the UN member agree by voting to exclude them.

I am by no means an apologist for totalitarian regimes. However, I don't think that it is the responsibility of the US democratize these countries using American taxpayer's money.

The US has supported some of these totalitarian regimes and even helped some to gain power. So arguing that these regimes should be democratized makes me wonder why no more effort was put toward establishing a democracy in the first place.

[elwoodblues]

I think the moral rationale is that the UN is a group representing the countries. If it's charter was to represent the people, that would be different.

[nicky g]

I wonder - if its role were representation of the people rather than countries, should it allow a member whose leader lost the plurality vote? Or should it recognise the candidate who won the most votes as the legitimate representative? /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
I will not defend him.

[/ QUOTE ]

You shouldn't.

[ QUOTE ]
I don't know what intellengence Kerry was allowed to see and what he knew about its veracity.

[/ QUOTE ]

The best intelligence available, the same intelligence that Lieberman and Gephardt saw. Neither one is an apoligist for Bush and both have shown the intellectual honesty and the integrity to have accountability for their decision. My opinion is that Kerry is lacking such honesty and such integrity.

[ QUOTE ]
In addition, Kerry has not articulated his position on this war clearly.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think he's got at least three positions, maybe 5.

[MaxPower]

Kerry is terrible Democratic candidate. There are dozens of Democrats who would make a better President.

However, there are thousands of Republicans who would be better a President than Bush.

My vote comes down to probability. I want the country to be taken in a certain direction and I support certain policies. I think that is more likely to happen under a Kerry administration than under a Bush administration. So for me the expected value of voting for Kerry exceed the expected value of voting for Bush.

The are both boobs however.

[andyfox]

"I thought these statements about say it all regarding the justification of removing Saddam from power"

Indeed, they do. We're in agreement.

I assume Mr. Kerry made these statements?

[jcx]

[ QUOTE ]

Can you explain the moral rationale behind allowing certain countries veto.


[/ QUOTE ]

Not necessarily moral, but practical. The UN is toothless, any resolutions hold no weight whatsoever without an army to enforce them. Since the 5 permanent members would presumably be providing the muscle to enforce UN resolutions, they did not wish to be forced into action without their consent. (France being a permanent member is a joke. In fact, the whole UN is a joke. But I'm simply trying to answer your question).

[Victor]

Ummmmm.........N. Korea has nukes. Why dont we attack them? Oh yea, its because they have nukes. Why didnt we attack soviet union? Oh yea, they had nukes.

The administration had to know that Iraq had no WMD, because if Iraq did, then we would not have messed with them and risked the mass destruction that the weapons would be capable of.

[theBruiser500]

Adios, do you spend all your time on here saying stupid things? If that is your justification for attacking Iraq, why shouldn't we attack North Korea? If we keep unilaterially going to war we just keep escalating conflicts which is dangerous. Why can't you see that, WAR IS BAD.

[ACPlayer]

... and I thought you were serious about the war on terror!!!

What a cop out!!!

[andyfox]

Did the Libertarian Party support or oppose the war in Iraq?

[ACPlayer]

My point is, and remains, any one voting for Bush (or copping out and voting libertarian) does not get the real culprits behind 9/11 are Saudi and Egyptians. So, the friends (Bushs') of our enemies (Saudis') should be fought and vanquished.

The fox is guarding the hen house.

Kerry is the only real choice with even a ghost of a chance of winning (pretty slim right now, I must say).

[superleeds]

[ QUOTE ]
Ummmmm.........N. Korea has nukes. Why dont we attack them? Oh yea, its because they have nukes.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well China may get a bit pissed too.

[ QUOTE ]
The administration had to know that Iraq had no WMD, because if Iraq did, then we would not have messed with them and risked the mass destruction that the weapons would be capable of.

[/ QUOTE ]

Whilst I agree that this administration almost certainly knew SH had sweet FA (I'm also willing to accept that they kept the puppet in the dark), I get the uneasy feeling that Cheney, Wolfa, Rummy et al would not have been to bothered about a handful of nukes - it would not have been total devastation by any means and it would have made their grab for World domination easier.

[jcx]

[ QUOTE ]
Did the Libertarian Party support or oppose the war in Iraq?

[/ QUOTE ]

The LP opposed it. And Michael Badnarik is the only candidate who will end the Iraq war by admitting our mistake and withdrawing our troops as quickly as possible. Democrats who think John Kerry will do anything about the Iraq war are kidding themselves. For a recent interview by LP Pres candidate Michael Badnarik where he discusses the Iraq war as well as other issues, check out this link:

http://www.ladylibrty.com/our_view.html

[andyfox]

.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
Actually, ACPlayer, I do think it was more about strategic interests than about any immediate threat to the U.S.

However I do think there is also some value in pre-empting certain potential future threats, especially given the nature of certain individuals or regimes.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree that strategic interests are important, but which interests are you talking about?

[ACPlayer]

In the neo con view: Oil and Israel
In MMMMMMM's view: The crusades redux, Oil and Israel.

Note that Oil and Israel as issues combined to bring us the power of The Ayatollah, courtesy our policies in Iran (via the CIA backed repressive SAVAK regime)>

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
My point is, and remains, any one voting for Bush (or copping out and voting libertarian) does not get the real culprits behind 9/11 are Saudi and Egyptians.

[/ QUOTE ]

Arent blanket assertions great? /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[ACPlayer]

Yes. Specially as I am always correct. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Chris Alger]

This is another example of being unable to identify anything that Iraq has done that doesn't also justify aggression against America.

Countless violations of the cease-fire agreement;

Just another way of saying that Iraq had stockpiles of WMD that it, in fact, did not have. As for violations of international law, note the number of times the U.S. and Israel have done the same.

an attempt on Bush Sr.'s life;

Believed only by loony rightists, who will take any excuse to kill Arabs. This canard has been so thoroughly debunked that not even the White House liars bothered to use it (e.g., Bush and Powell making their cases against Iraq before the UN). The U.S., however, has admitted to using assassination as a tool of foreign policy.

eternal thwarting and avoidance of agreed upon inspections;

Were you drunk when Blix and al-Baradei were telling the world that they had unrestricted access to the whole of Iraq and were unable to find any WMD? One could justify attacking the U.S. due to its "eternal thwarting" of enforcement of security council resolutions against Israel and Turkey. More to the point, how far has the international community gotten with trying to get the U.S. or Israel to get rid of their WMD?

financial support and encouragement for suicide bombes in Israel;

Untrue. It was financial support was for families of Palestinians killed during the intifada in part because Israel refuses to compensate the families of the people it kills during its illegal occupation. That Iraq failed to distinguish terrorists from passive victims puts it on par with other Middle East countries that not only don't provoke the U.S. to war but merit receipt of U.S. aid, according to Bush. The U.S., however, openly supports Israel in its terrorist wars against the occupied territories and Lebanon, resulting in a much higher death toll than the Palestinian suicide bombers could ever hope for.

relentless anti-aircraft firings on US planes enforcing the agreed upon no-fly zones.

"Agreed upon"?????

So the planes and pilots that killed hundreds of Iraqi civilians while targeting civilian infrastructure are the real victims. This is virtually a mirror image of those claiming the suicide bombers are the victims.

Again, one could "justify" terrorism against the U.S. for its own violations of international law, and indeed use the no-fly zone killings as an equally good excuse.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
I assume Mr. Kerry made these statements?

[/ QUOTE ]

You assume correctly.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
Adios, do you spend all your time on here saying stupid things?

[/ QUOTE ]

No

[ QUOTE ]
If that is your justification for attacking Iraq, why shouldn't we attack North Korea?

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't make the statements. Your horse in the presidential race made them, John Forbes Kerry. This is your guy making the statements /images/graemlins/smile.gif take it up with him.



[ QUOTE ]
If we keep unilaterially going to war we just keep escalating conflicts which is dangerous.

[/ QUOTE ]

These statements come from Kerry. These are his justifications. I'm a nobody, Kerry's running for president do you see the difference in attacking me as opposed to Kerry.

[ QUOTE ]
Why can't you see that, WAR IS BAD.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why can't you see that the candidate you support supported the war in Iraq to take Saddam out.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
This is another example of being unable to identify anything that Iraq has done that doesn't also justify aggression against America.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually the above is another example of Chris Alger trying to deflect the argument.


[ QUOTE ]
Countless violations of the cease-fire agreement;

Just another way of saying that Iraq had stockpiles of WMD that it, in fact, did not have. As for violations of international law, note the number of times the U.S. and Israel have done the same.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I am referring to the entire time period between the Gulf War and the Iraq war.


[ QUOTE ]
an attempt on Bush Sr.'s life;

Believed only by loony rightists, who will take any excuse to kill Arabs. This canard has been so thoroughly debunked that not even the White House liars bothered to use it (e.g., Bush and Powell making their cases against Iraq before the UN). The U.S., however, has admitted to using assassination as a tool of foreign policy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Whatever; it's not the most important point either way.


[ QUOTE ]
eternal thwarting and avoidance of agreed upon inspections;

Were you drunk when Blix and al-Baradei were telling the world that they had unrestricted access to the whole of Iraq and were unable to find any WMD? One could justify attacking the U.S. due to its "eternal thwarting" of enforcement of security council resolutions against Israel and Turkey. More to the point, how far has the international community gotten with trying to get the U.S. or Israel to get rid of their WMD?

[/ QUOTE ]

Again I am referring to the entire time between the Gulf War and Iraq war.


[ QUOTE ]
financial support and encouragement for suicide bombes in Israel;

Untrue. It was financial support was for families of Palestinians killed during the intifada in part because Israel refuses to compensate the families of the people it kills during its illegal occupation. That Iraq failed to distinguish terrorists from passive victims puts it on par with other Middle East countries that not only don't provoke the U.S. to war but merit receipt of U.S. aid, according to Bush. The U.S., however, openly supports Israel in its terrorist wars against the occupied territories and Lebanon, resulting in a much higher death toll than the Palestinian suicide bombers could ever hope for.

[/ QUOTE ]

Saddam's financiering of the families of suicide bombers helped turn it into a cottage industry, regardless of his original intent.


[ QUOTE ]
relentless anti-aircraft firings on US planes enforcing the agreed upon no-fly zones.

"Agreed upon"?????

So the planes and pilots that killed hundreds of Iraqi civilians while targeting civilian infrastructure are the real victims. This is virtually a mirror image of those claiming the suicide bombers are the victims.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm referring to the antiaircraft fire that persisted regularly for many years, upon pilots simply patrolling the no-fly zones: a clearly provocative act by Saddam.

[ QUOTE ]
Again, one could "justify" terrorism against the U.S. for its own violations of international law, and indeed use the no-fly zone killings as an equally good excuse.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not parallel or mirror-image at all, but you are apparently spatially incompetent at viewing in your mind's eye what is equivalent or mirror-image and what isn't. And of course, you would just love to justify terrorism against the U.S., wouldn't you, Chris? Your true colors are shining through now.

[MMMMMM]

I believe the Libertarian Party to be in error with regard to its stated platform as to where it involves foreign policy. Still the Libertarian Party is so good when it comes to domestic policy, that it should not be written off due to one weak plank in its platform.

Additionally, since this election is for all practical intents and purposes a two-horse race, and since I do not seem to be in a swing state, I view this as an excellent opportunity to vote for the party whose views most closely parallel my own views in the lareger sense.

[MMMMMM]

"I agree that strategic interests are important, but which interests are you talking about?"

The ability to project power in the region, to ensure the flow of oil, and if necessary stomp the crap out of any regional adversaries if they become too belligerent (for instance if Iran actually starts assembling nukes). The chance to help democracy take root in the region may be viewed as a longer-term strategic interest (hopefully it will succeed in some fashion). Removing Saddam's potential for restarting his WMD plans or production is a piece of the picture but IMO not the most inportant piece by any stretch.

[nicky g]

"eternal thwarting and avoidance of agreed upon inspections;

Were you drunk when Blix and al-Baradei were telling the world that they had unrestricted access to the whole of Iraq and were unable to find any WMD? One could justify attacking the U.S. due to its "eternal thwarting" of enforcement of security council resolutions against Israel and Turkey. More to the point, how far has the international community gotten with trying to get the U.S. or Israel to get rid of their WMD?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Again I am referring to the entire time between the Gulf War and Iraq war."

So even if it had changed its ways by 2003 and was cooperating, previous transgressions would have justified an invasion then?

[MMMMMM]

Overly wishful thinking, Nicky: no way in hell was Saddam changing his ways.

[jcx]

I don't agree w/ 100% of the LP platform (Though I do agree for the most part on foreign policy). I think their take on immigration (Completely open borders) is asinine. The LP platform is not static, there is lively debate in the party over quite a few issues. All I know is it is 1000X better than anything on the table today. There are so many important issues facing the US today, and the majority of debate over the 2 main candidates revolves around what they did or didn't do over 30 years ago. The campaign managers for both parties must be smiling, for this is what they want. Keeping people argueing over such ridiculousness helps hide how truly bankrupt both major parties & their candidates are.

[MMMMMM]

I too think the LP plank regarding immigration is asinine--yet I share your view that for the most part, the LP platform is far better than anything else out there.

[ACPlayer]

So, the most dangerous group on the planet -- The Islamists and the LP will pull out of Iraq -- there goes those "strategic interests". We pretty much know that Georgie will, obiedient ( like a good dog) to his masters, and go after Iran and Syria you so stridently and emotionally call for.

The LP immigration policy is "asinine".

Hmmmmmm. Good choice. Wise. Role model thinking.

[theBruiser500]

adios, bush is more apt to go to war than kerry.

[MMMMMM]

I said I think the LP is wrong on foreign policy and immigration policy.

I'm not sure what your point is--if you have one.

[MMMMMM]

Just a sidenote: a couple of decades ago I thought nothing could be worse than war. Now I think some things are considerably worse.

Food for thought, that's all.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
adios, bush is more apt to go to war than kerry.

[/ QUOTE ]

I know you're smarter than this. I post these statements:

He has supported and harbored terrorist groups...

There is no question that Saddam Hussein represents a threat. . . .

Who can say that this master of miscalculation will not develop a weapon of mass destruction even greater -- a nuclear weapon. . . .

And while the administration has failed to provide any direct link between Iraq and the events of September 11, can we afford to ignore the possibility that Saddam Hussein might accidentally, as well as purposely, allow those weapons to slide off to one group or other in a region where weapons are the currency of trade? How do we leave that to chance? ...

You attack me for being an idiot because the statements are in your opinion idiotic, and I point out that they were direct quotes from Kerry. If you think only an idiot would make these statements you must think Kerry is an idiot. To be honest they appear to be something that could have come out of the hardest of the hard core hawks wanting a war in Iraq but I assure you the quotes I cited were made by John Kerry. It goes to show how manipulative and disingenuous politicians are. IMO Kerry doesn't get a pass because he may not have done his due dilligence before the war. He's a U.S. Senator for crying out loud and a candidate for president on top of that. He voted for the war in Iraq, he made the statements and those are the facts. He did so either bowing to political pressure or he did so because he thought it was right.

[Cyrus]

You should know that the best parts of your posts are fast becoming the quotes from those you respond to.

"Of course, you would just love to justify terrorism against the U.S., wouldn't you, Chris? Your true colors are shining through."

Ending with a personal attack and an insult. Par for the course.

[MMMMMM]

You are intent upon the things of respectively lesser importance. Par for the course.