They won't fight for their own "cause"

[Toro]

NY Times News story: "Iraqui units have fled as soon as they faced hostile fire".

This is unacceptable to me. Why should we shed American blood for these people. We need to leave this place now.

[jakethebake]

You do realize we're not really there for them right? You do realize that possibly helping the Iraqis was just a side benefit. We're there because Sadaam bought terrorists weapons and allowed them to train in Iraq. And because Iraq was an unstable influence on the region. And because Sadaam may or may not have had weapons of mass destruction. Etc. Etc. All of which are kind of, sort of important to us.

[Cyrus]

It's yellow, for the colour of their soldiers' bellies. The three red stripes are for the blood unshed.

...Are you getting the hint yet?

<font color="white">. </font>

[Toro]

[ QUOTE ]
You do realize we're not really there for them right? You do realize that possibly helping the Iraqis was just a side benefit. We're there because Sadaam bought terrorists weapons and allowed them to train in Iraq. And because Iraq was an unstable influence on the region. And because Sadaam may or may not have had weapons of mass destruction. Etc. Etc. All of which are kind of, sort of important to us.

[/ QUOTE ]

All of the reasons why we were supposed to be there turned out to be bogus. So whether we intended it or not, all of the blood sweat tears and money is all for cowardly people who don't even appreciate what we are sacrificing for them and aren't even willing to match our sacrifice.

[Cyrus]

"We're there because Sadaam bought terrorists weapons and allowed them to train in Iraq."

There is neither proof nor evidence for anything like that. All those wild and woolly claims have been quietly dropped.

"Iraq was an unstable influence on the region."

Hmmm, perhaps you might wanna rethink this! The record shows that Saddam Hussein kept a lid on Muslim fundamentalism in his part of the world extremely tightly! Saddam's Iraq was hostile to radical Islam.

Plus, Saddam kept the Kurds in check, working in tandem with the Turks and the Syrians on this issue. Personally I happen to support the Kurdish cause for independence but since you are talking strictly, coldly, American national interests, well, the Kurdish independence has been placed de facto at the center of the situation, after the invasion, and is now bust wide open. The Kurdish issue threatens to de-stabilize the whole region, starting with Turkey! Just wait a bit, after the Iraqi "elections".

Note also that Saddam Hussein (if we are to believe the testimonies of American ambassadors) never went to a war without getting the nod from Washington! In his war against Khomeini's Iran, for instance, he had the full backing of the United States. (He was certainly not called an "unstable influence" back then!) And before he invaded Kuwait he got the green light (or thought he got it) from the American ambassador.

"Sadaam may or may not have had weapons of mass destruction."

Choose "may not". /images/graemlins/grin.gif

Saddam Hussein got rid of all his Weapons of Mass Destruction eventually, as the UN inspectors were so close to finding out. The US should not have acted only on the information it had at the time - period.

[jakethebake]

[ QUOTE ]
All of the reasons why we were supposed to be there turned out to be bogus.

[/ QUOTE ]
I assume you're referring to the weapons of mass destruction issue, which may or may not have been "bogus". We know for a fact that he had them at one time. He used them against his own people. And we know he had the capability to make more. We also know he had made numerous explicit threats against the U.S. and its citizens.

But the other issues certainly are not "bogus". The fact that Saadam helped train terrorists is not "bogus". The fact that we are dependent on foreign oil to some extent and it is in our best interests long-term not to have Sadaam in power.

I think the biggest issue is that no one should have ever insinuated that we were doing it for the Iraqi people to begin with. We did it for ourselves, and I think it was the right decision. Whether we've done it well may be another topic of debate.

[jakethebake]

[ QUOTE ]
"We're there because Sadaam bought terrorists weapons and allowed them to train in Iraq." There is neither proof nor evidence for anything like that. All those wild and woolly claims have been quietly dropped.

[/ QUOTE ]
There's actually a lot of evidence of it. There were terrorist camps all over that country. And no I won't go find a link for you. But I'll say my knowledge of this is absolutely concrete. The claims haven't been "dropped". Those idiots in the Bush camp just got it in their heads somehow that Americans would back the war for humanitarian reasons rather than the actual reasons.

[ QUOTE ]
...In his war against Khomeini's Iran, for instance, he had the full backing of the United States. (He was certainly not called an "unstable influence" back then!) And before he invaded Kuwait he got the green light (or thought he got it) from the American ambassador.

[/ QUOTE ]
That was the past. The fact that we used him (ie. against Iran) when we needed to, doesn't mean he was any less dangerous. Maybe that was a mistake at the time, maybe not. But the fact is he WAS dangerous before we removed him. As for the approval to invade Kuwait, THAT is just plain false.

[ QUOTE ]
Saddam Hussein got rid of all his Weapons of Mass Destruction eventually, as the UN inspectors were so close to finding out. The US should not have acted only on the information it had at the time - period.

[/ QUOTE ]
I disagree. But regardless, getting rid of them one step ahead of inspectors doesn't prevent from acquiring more as I belive he'd absolutely be inclined to do at some point.

[cardcounter0]

"We know for a fact that he had them at one time."

Yes, we sold them to him.

"He used them against his own people."

Yes, with our permission, and with helicopters supplied by us.

"And we know he had the capability to make more."

Uh, no we don't. The most they have been able to come up with was the "desire" to start "programs" and some crude drawings done in crayon.

"We also know he had made numerous explicit threats against the U.S. and its citizens."

Woooooooo! Daddy the mean bad man talk mean to me.
Making threats and actually having the capability or desire to carry them out are two totally different things.

I think I would be more concerned with the threats coming from terrorist groups (having nothing to do with Saddam) that have ACTUALLY carried out on their threats, and have shown a CAPABILITY of doing again in the future.

[jakethebake]

[ QUOTE ]
"We know for a fact that he had them at one time."
Yes, we sold them to him.

[/ QUOTE ]
In the case of some chemical weapons this is true. Not truw of the bio weapons. Regardless, it is IRRELEVANT! The past is the past. He was dangerous, and the past mistake needed to be corrected. Just because we gave him the gun doesn't mean we should let him shoot us with it.

[ QUOTE ]
"He used them against his own people." Yes, with our permission, and with helicopters supplied by us.

[/ QUOTE ]
Some of his helicopters were ours that we gave him to fight Iran. We did not give him "permission" to use bio weapons against his own people, or anyone else.

[ QUOTE ]
"And we know he had the capability to make more." Uh, no we don't. The most they have been able to come up with was the "desire" to start "programs" and some crude drawings done in crayon.

[/ QUOTE ]
He produced bio and chemical weapons in house at one time. The technology to do so again existed.

[ QUOTE ]
"We also know he had made numerous explicit threats against the U.S. and its citizens." Woooooooo! Daddy the mean bad man talk mean to me. Making threats and actually having the capability or desire to carry them out are two totally different things.

[/ QUOTE ]
If someone: Buys a gun. Learns to fire it. Shoots other people. Tells me he's going to shoot me. I'm gonna shoot him first.

[ QUOTE ]
I think I would be more concerned with the threats coming from terrorist groups (having nothing to do with Saddam) that have ACTUALLY carried out on their threats, and have shown a CAPABILITY of doing again in the future.

[/ QUOTE ]
Sadaam was providing funds, weapons, and a place to train to terrorists. Period.

[cardcounter0]

it is IRRELEVANT!

Okay, so one of your reasons when shown to be wrong is now IRRELEVANT! IRRELEVANT, I tell you. Why the yelling?

Oh, and merely repeating your half truths again and again does not make them true.

"If someone: Buys a gun. Learns to fire it. Shoots other people. Tells me he's going to shoot me. I'm gonna shoot him first."

If that someone is on the other side of the world, and doesn't have a gun with a range long enough to reach you, then you are a dumbass.

"Sadaam was providing funds, weapons, and a place to train to terrorists. Period."

Period, semi-colon, excalmation point! It doesn't matter. This is not true. Repeat it as much as you want. Not true. Repeat it again, still not true.

Iran is probably the biggest funder of terrorists next to Saudi Arabia (our good business partner). Afganistan, Lebanon, Pakistan (the latter being the biggest source of WMDs) provide the majority of terrorist training and facilities.

IRRELEVANT! (repeat lie) IRRELEVANT! (repeat lie).
If you grow tired of this pattern, throw in a red herring --
Hey, those Gay Guys want to steal your social security!

[jakethebake]

[ QUOTE ]
it is IRRELEVANT! Okay, so one of your reasons when shown to be wrong is now IRRELEVANT! IRRELEVANT, I tell you. Why the yelling?

[/ QUOTE ]
You didn't show anything to be wrong. You took it in an irrelevant direction. And I use caps because it's easier than bolding or italicizing for me.

[ QUOTE ]
"If someone: Buys a gun. Learns to fire it. Shoots other people. Tells me he's going to shoot me. I'm gonna shoot him first." If that someone is on the other side of the world, and doesn't have a gun with a range long enough to reach you, then you are a dumbass.

[/ QUOTE ]
You probably thought Al Qaeda couldn't get here either. And we don't have people sneaking into the country from Mexico every day. And no one used the U.S. postal service to send Anthrax. ICBMs with nukes on them aren't the only WMD or the only delivery method.

[ QUOTE ]
"Sadaam was providing funds, weapons, and a place to train to terrorists. Period." Period, semi-colon, excalmation point! It doesn't matter. This is not true. Repeat it as much as you want. Not true. Repeat it again, still not true.

[/ QUOTE ]
It is absolutely 100% true. There is no doubt on this point whatsoever. The fact that you say it isn't only tells me you have no first hand knowledge of any of this. And that you're just parroting some crap you probably read in the popular liberal press.

[ QUOTE ]
Iran is probably the biggest funder of terrorists next to Saudi Arabia (our good business partner). Afganistan, Lebanon, Pakistan (the latter being the biggest source of WMDs) provide the majority of terrorist training and facilities.

[/ QUOTE ]
On this point you get no arguement from me.

[ QUOTE ]
IRRELEVANT! (repeat lie) IRRELEVANT! (repeat lie).
If you grow tired of this pattern, throw in a red herring --
Hey, those Gay Guys want to steal your social security!

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure what this means. I've said over and over in threads that I'm not a Bush fan.

[cardcounter0]

"You probably thought Al Qaeda couldn't get here either."

No, like I said in my first post, we should pay attention to CREDIBLE threats, not what some thug dictator says. Actually, Clinton had DAILY security briefings on Al Qaeda, they told the Bush administration they were our biggest threat. The Bush administration didn't want to hear anything about it, all focus was on Iraq. They went on a 6 month vacation, Al Qaeda attacked, and they invaded Iraq.

"And we don't have people sneaking into the country from Mexico every day." -- Connection to Saddam and Iraq? ZERO.

"And no one used the U.S. postal service to send Anthrax."
-- Connection to Saddam and Iraq? Zero.

"ICBMs with nukes on them aren't the only WMD or the only delivery method." -- agreed. So what did Saddam have? Not what was he thinking about, not what did we want to have, not what was he capable of making (just like I can in my kitchen), what DID HE HAVE?

So since we can't just repeat the same lie over and over, we now throw a bunch of red herrings into the argument -- people sneaking in from Mexico, Oh My! Let's get Saddam!

[jakethebake]

[ QUOTE ]
"You probably thought Al Qaeda couldn't get here either."

No, like I said in my first post, we should pay attention to CREDIBLE threats, not what some thug dictator says. Actually, Clinton had DAILY security briefings on Al Qaeda, they told the Bush administration they were our biggest threat. The Bush administration didn't want to hear anything about it, all focus was on Iraq. They went on a 6 month vacation, Al Qaeda attacked, and they invaded Iraq.

"And we don't have people sneaking into the country from Mexico every day." -- Connection to Saddam and Iraq? ZERO.

"And no one used the U.S. postal service to send Anthrax."
-- Connection to Saddam and Iraq? Zero.

"ICBMs with nukes on them aren't the only WMD or the only delivery method." -- agreed. So what did Saddam have? Not what was he thinking about, not what did we want to have, not what was he capable of making (just like I can in my kitchen), what DID HE HAVE?

So since we can't just repeat the same lie over and over, we now throw a bunch of red herrings into the argument -- people sneaking in from Mexico, Oh My! Let's get Saddam!

[/ QUOTE ]
o.k. my last post on this. I'm bored with it. If you don't see the connection on any of these there's no point in this anyway. The point was obvious. There is an abundance of delivery methods other than ICBMs. If the only thing you're worried about is ICBMs, then enjoy your rose-colored glasses and good luck to you. Intent and capability are what matters. He had both. If I want you dead, it doesn't matter that I don't have a gun. Why? Because I have the ability to get one. I won't argue that Sadaam hasn't taken the public focus off of other important security concerns. It has. And I'm sure that was part of Bush's intention. But that doesn't make Sadaam any less of a concern.

[cardcounter0]

Glad you agree there is no connection between Saddam, Iraq, and the security concerns you bring up.

Glad you agree that invading Iraq has done nothing to address the security concerns you bring up.

Glad you agree that the resources used to invade Iraq has weakened our ability to respond to the security concerns that you bring up.

Now maybe you can start thinking about the mess that Iraq is in right now. Instead of a country that had a brutal dictator sitting on all dissent, we have a hotbed of terrorist activity, and Islamic Fundamentalism. Much safer now?

Think about what happens when these forces take control after elections and the whole country shifts towards Iran. Feel safer now? Oh, and all your security concerns still haven't been addressed in the meantime.