Recent History - U.S vs Iraq

[SheetWise]

Just how big a threat was Saddam Hussein? Let’s reprise what our leaders had to say on the subject. First, here’s the president:

[ QUOTE ]
If he refuses or continues to evade his obligations through more tactics of delay and deception, he and he alone will be to blame for the consequences. … Now, let’s imagine the future. What if he fails to comply, and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction…? Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction. And some day, some way, I guarantee you, he’ll use the arsenal. And I think every one of you who’s really worked on this for any length of time believes that, too.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here is the vice president:

[ QUOTE ]
If you allow someone like Saddam Hussein to get nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, chemical weapons, biological weapons, how many people is he going to kill with such weapons? He’s already demonstrated a willingness to use these weapons. He poison-gassed his own people. He used poison gas and other weapons of mass destruction against his neighbors. This man has no compunction about killing lots and lots of people. So this is a way to save lives and to save the stability and peace of a region of the world that is important to the peace and security of the entire world.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here’s the hitch: That was Clinton and Gore in 1998, not Bush and Dick Cheney in 2002.

President Clinton offered his assessment in February 1998. Gore made his observations the following December, defending the military strikes Clinton had ordered against Iraq. These were not off-the-cuff remarks but vetted statements by the two highest officials of the United States.

More (http://www.nationalreview.com/goldberg/goldberg200511040822.asp)

[ QUOTE ]
President Clinton offered his assessment in February 1998. Gore made his observations the following December, defending the military strikes Clinton had ordered against Iraq.

[/ QUOTE ] Exactly, C/G defending some strategic MISSLE STRIKES, designed to make a point. that point being, don't stockpile WMD's. Lo and behold, it appears he didn't. if your point is that Clinton did a good job in containing Saddam without costing thousands of american lives, and Billions of dollars, your point is well taken.

[SheetWise]

[ QUOTE ]
Exactly, C/G defending some strategic MISSLE STRIKES, designed to make a point. that point being, don't stockpile WMD's. Lo and behold, it appears he didn't. if your point is that Clinton did a good job in containing Saddam without costing thousands of american lives, and Billions of dollars, your point is well taken.

[/ QUOTE ]
If liberals would like to limited the debate to how the US responded -- there is a legitimate debate. If they want to continually make an issue of why we responded, they're being intellectually dishonest.

The only reason I can think of that they have changed the subject from how to why -- is because they voted for the how before they had a chance to wet their finger and stick it in the air.

[ QUOTE ]

If liberals would like to limited the debate to how the US responded -- there is a legitimate debate. If they want to continually make an issue of why we responded, they're being intellectually dishonest.


[/ QUOTE ]

Please, spare us. The "intellectual dishonesty" here is your lame attempt to suggest that any opposition to the war or acknowlegdement of the obvious -- i.e., that the administration misled the country to sell the war -- is somehow equivilant to a position that Saddam Hussein is a swell fellow that we didn't have to worry about at all.

If you see someone walking toward you and looking another way, and you believe that he is going to bump into you and you can't get out of the way, do you:

1) Call out to get him to pay attention;
2) Put out your hands to stop him; or
3) Take out a knife and attack him.

Only a fool equates all of these options, and only a bigger fool believes that anyone who rejects number 3 doesn't care if someone bumps into them.

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
if your point is that Clinton did a good job in containing Saddam without costing thousands of american lives, and Billions of dollars, your point is well taken.


[/ QUOTE ]

Couple of counter points:

Containing Saddam did cost billions and would have continued to cost billions. In that process American lives would have continued to be put in Jeopardy just as they have for the 12 years prior to Iraqi freedom. During this time thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands, of Iraqis were being killed by Saddam.

The actual cost in American lives to remove Saddam from power was extremely small. Its the cost of trying to establish a free, stable and democratic Iraq that is actually proving to be very high.

Remember, the number one enemy in Iraq is Zarqawi and his organization, Al Queda in Iraq. These are the people thousands of American soldiers have died fighting. They attacked us first in the United States, and then in Iraq.

Stu

[SheetWise]

[ QUOTE ]
If you see someone walking toward you and looking another way, and you believe that he is going to bump into you and you can't get out of the way, do you:

1) Call out to get him to pay attention;
2) Put out your hands to stop him; or
3) Take out a knife and attack him.

Only a fool equates all of these options, and only a bigger fool believes that anyone who rejects number 3 doesn't care if someone bumps into them.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you confront a known murderer, who tells you he is armed, and after 17 times asking him to drop his weapon -- he refuses -- do you:

1) Ask him again;
2) Speak louder; or
3) Shoot.

Only a fool equates all of these options, and only a bigger fool believes that anyone who selects number 3 is guilty of a crime upon finding that the gun wasn't loaded.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
Just how big a threat was Saddam Hussein?

[/ QUOTE ]

You have just crashed through the comedic level of MMMMMM and are now heading for the level of Jaxmike.

You understand, I hope, that this is a downward course.

[SheetWise]

[ QUOTE ]
You understand, I hope, that this is a downward course.

[/ QUOTE ]
How can you tell from down there?

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
The number one enemy in Iraq is Zarqawi and his organization, Al Queda in Iraq.

[/ QUOTE ]

How can one respond to such an assertion, to such a gross generalisation, without calling its source names, such as "ignorant" or "close-minded"?

Ah well. One can attempt, perhaps, to respond by putting forth questions:

- Is a foreign, terrorist organisation able to be as successful as the Iraqi insurgency is so far, without significant assistance from the local, Iraqi civilian population?

- If a significant number of Iraqi civilians are assisting the insurgents, does it not follow that a significant number of Iraqi civilians are taking the step from offering logistics support to actively participating in operations?

- When, in History, has a foreign-led and foreign-instigated rebellion/insurgency been successful without the active and massive participation of the local civilian population?

- If what you assert is true, then capturing Zarqawi would strike a lethal blow to the insurgency ?

One could go on. But then one would waste Sunday.

[ QUOTE ]
The actual cost in American lives to remove Saddam from power was extremely small. Its the cost of trying to establish a free, stable and democratic Iraq that is actually proving to be very high.

[/ QUOTE ]
May I remind you that removing Saddam was only one part of the "American Plan"?

Care to tell us how you would rate the success, so far, of the whole Plan?

But, possibly, you prefer announcements like this one: "And now, the latest from Astrodome: Houston 7."

[InchoateHand]

[ QUOTE ]
Remember, the number one enemy in Iraq is Zarqawi and his organization, Al Queda in Iraq. These are the people thousands of American soldiers have died fighting. They attacked us first in the United States, and then in Iraq.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can call myself Al Queda, walk downtown, and set myself on fire. Does that mean that they will have attacked us in NY, in Iraq and in Michigan?

Are you really so foolish as to think these are remotely the same organizations?

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You understand, I hope, that [yours] is a downward course.

[/ QUOTE ]
How can you tell from down there?

[/ QUOTE ]
Well, you are getting smaller, in more ways than one.

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
I can call myself Al Queda, walk downtown, and set myself on fire. Does that mean that they will have attacked us in NY, in Iraq and in Michigan?



[/ QUOTE ]

If you did those things people would probably think you were just a quack. If you really wanted to convince people you were part of the oraganiztion do what Zarqawi did. Make a video of yourself severing the head of an American you kidnapped. Publically pledge your allegence to Osama Bin Laden. Actively correspond with Osama Bin Laden and with such frequency that multiple letters are captured.

Stu

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
How can one respond to such an assertion, to such a gross generalisation, without calling its source names, such as "ignorant" or "close-minded"?


[/ QUOTE ]

I'll cede to the validity of your point if you can point to any one person in Iraq who has a larger bounty on their head than Zarqawi

Stu

[Borodog]

Stu,

Excellent avatar.

[ QUOTE ]
Remember, the number one enemy in Iraq is Zarqawi and his organization, Al Queda in Iraq. These are the people thousands of American soldiers have died fighting. They attacked us first in the United States, and then in Iraq.


[/ QUOTE ]

How did this "Al Queda" group in Iraq come into existence? Were they there before the war started? Did they form after the war? Was it an existing terrorist group in Iraq that decided to join Al Queda after the war?

These are not facetious questions. IIRC, we went into Iraq to get Saddam because he possibly had WMDs. When we initially went into Iraq, I don't remember any mention of there being an existing Al Queda group in Iraq. The reason for the war was strictly to find the WMDs and remove Saddam from power.

The first time I heard of Al Queda being in Iraq was after the U.S. had achieved "Mission Accomplished" status. I was listening to some of the President's ramblings and he said something or other about how the U.S. military was now fighting Al Queda in Iraq.

So how did "Al Queda in Iraq" come to be? Was the group able to form after Saddam was removed and there was no longer any strong, stabilizing power in Iraq? Somebody clue me in.

[sam h]

What is your point? It's well known that some people have been worried about Saddam having WMD for a long time. The question was always whether (a) sanctions and inspections were sufficient to keep him from arming or to keep his arsenal to a minimum and (b) the relative costs of different courses of action.

Bush answered these two questions differently than Clinton, a fundamental departure that amounts to an entirely different middle east policy. Your implication that there is a strong continuity here is nonsense.

[ QUOTE ]
Just how big a threat was Saddam Hussein? Let’s reprise what our leaders had to say on the subject. First, here’s the president:


[ QUOTE ]


If he refuses or continues to evade his obligations through more tactics of delay and deception, he and he alone will be to blame for the consequences. … Now, let’s imagine the future. What if he fails to comply, and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction…? Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction. And some day, some way, I guarantee you, he’ll use the arsenal. And I think every one of you who’s really worked on this for any length of time believes that, too.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

As soon as I read the first sentence, I knew this quote didn't come from our current president. No way that monkey is able to construct a sentence, much less a whole paragraph, that elegant. Thanks for the reminder of the good ol' days when we had an intelligent president in office who followed an intelligent policy in regards to Iraq.

[SheetWise]

[ QUOTE ]
What is your point? It's well known that some people have been worried about Saddam having WMD for a long time. The question was always whether (a) sanctions and inspections were sufficient to keep him from arming or to keep his arsenal to a minimum and (b) the relative costs of different courses of action.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
"Before the war, week after week after week after week, we were told lie after lie after lie after lie."
Ted Kennedy

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
"He betrayed this country! He played on our fears. He took America on an ill-conceived foreign adventure dangerous to our troops, an adventure preordained and planned before 9/11 ever took place."
Al Gore

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
"Tere was no imminent threat. This was made up in Texas, announced in January to the Republican leadership that war was going to take place and was going to be good politically. This whole thing was a fraud."
Ted Kennedy

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Bush lied about al Qaeda, about nukes, and about WMDs.
Howard Dean

[/ QUOTE ]

[sam h]

I don't see the contradiction between Clinton and Gore saying that Saddam was dangerous and Bush lying about the situation to support the case for war. Why don't you just clearly state your argument rather than give these quotes?

[nicky g]

"Here’s the hitch: That was Clinton and Gore in 1998, not Bush and Dick Cheney in 2002.

President Clinton offered his assessment in February 1998. Gore made his observations the following December, defending the military strikes Clinton had ordered against Iraq. These were not off-the-cuff remarks but vetted statements by the two highest officials of the United States."

This point has been made and discussed here many times before.

[cardcounter0]

[ QUOTE ]
The actual cost in American lives to remove Saddam from power was extremely small. Its the cost of trying to establish a free, stable and democratic Iraq that is actually proving to be very high.


[/ QUOTE ]

Jumping out of an airplane without a parachute is safe, it is only the last few feet of the fall that poses a problem.

[ACPlayer]

[ QUOTE ]
The actual cost in American lives to remove Saddam from power was extremely small. Its the cost of trying to establish a free, stable and democratic Iraq that is actually proving to be very high.


[/ QUOTE ]

The "liberals" who opposed the war predicted that

- there was no plan to win the aftermath of the shock and awe
- the ethnic tensions would be very difficult to manage and there was no plan to do so
- the chances of a theocracy was very high


Even the Powell doctrine was ignored, there was no exit strategy in place.

Not only the "liberals" have been proven right in their assessment that there was no present and gathering threat but in their assessment that we were entering a no-win situation.

So, on the how and the why the anti-war camp appears to have understood the situation better than the gunslingers.

[Randy_Refeld]

[ QUOTE ]
So, on the how and the why the anti-war camp appears to have understood the situation better than the gunslingers.

[/ QUOTE ]

Did they have an alternative plan? Did they want to buy more oil from Sadaam until he had moeny to buy more weapons? Did they vote to faovr attacking Iraq so that if it worked out well they wouldn't be seen as soft national security?

What would be the total number of US soldiers dead if it was reported on the news everytime one if the terrorists was killed? Does the US media encourage the terrorists or do
only the Democrats in the US get joy from the US loss of life?

[cardcounter0]

[ QUOTE ]
Did they have an alternative plan?

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes.

[ QUOTE ]
Did they want to buy more oil from Sadaam until he had moeny to buy more weapons?

[/ QUOTE ]
No. In fact, since they weren't buying any oil it would be hard to buy "more". Also remember it was the former Republican admin that sold him weapons.

[ QUOTE ]
Did they vote to faovr attacking Iraq so that if it worked out well they wouldn't be seen as soft national security?

[/ QUOTE ]
Probably the best explanation, that, and a bunch of lies from the administration.

[ QUOTE ]
What would be the total number of US soldiers dead if it was reported on the news everytime one if the terrorists was killed? ?

[/ QUOTE ]
Could you restate this in English, please? I don't think reports on the news kills anyone, but I really don't know what the hell you are saying.

[ QUOTE ]
Does the US media encourage the terrorists or do
only the Democrats in the US get joy from the US loss of life

[/ QUOTE ]
No on both questions. At least I think. Two totally unrelated questions joined with the word "or". The word "only" in there kind of confuses me. Are you saying that you get joy from US loss of life also?

Better wait for the kool-aid rush to subside, at least until you can form half-way reasonable thoughts.

[Randy_Refeld]

[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
Did they have an alternative plan?


Yes.

[/ QUOTE ]

What was it? Did it involve trusting Sadaam?

[ QUOTE ]
No. In fact, since they weren't buying any oil it would be hard to buy "more". Also remember it was the former Republican admin that sold him weapons.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which admin sat bye and allowed him to sell oil in the 90s?

[ QUOTE ]
Probably the best explanation, that, and a bunch of lies from the administration.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which lies would those be? Being mistaken is not a lie. It is unfornate that intelligence was neglected in the 90s so the current admin acted on flawed info.




[ QUOTE ]
Could you restate this in English, please? I don't think reports on the news kills anyone, but I really don't know what the hell you are saying.

[/ QUOTE ]

Currently there are just over 2k service men and women dead in Iraq. Would the rate if their dying increase or decrease if instead of reporting the 2k number everday report the number of bad guys they kill. What is the US to bad kill ratio 1:1 2:1 3:1? (It was reported as 10:1 but that was using a shorter period of time for the bad guys dead). DO you think the US media coverage of this is inspiring the rest of the world to believe the US will give up?

[ QUOTE ]
No on both questions. At least I think. Two totally unrelated questions joined with the word "or". The word "only" in there kind of confuses me. Are you saying that you get joy from US loss of life also?


[/ QUOTE ]

Let me see it I understand you correctly. You believe that the media reporting over and over the number of US dead without reporting the number of enemy dead does not serve to motivate the enemy. And you believe the Democrats are not enjoying see dead US soldiers?

I am sure the Democrats realize their only chance of winning relies on a bad result in Iraq; is seems natural that the Democrats would have a natural ally in the terroists attacking US soldiers.

How many American deaths woudl be unaccpetable to the Democrats in excahnge for the White House? What do the Democrats believe in other than turning America against itself?

Since the Democrats like to claim their administration did a better job of running the country in the 90s please list the legislative initiatives that the administration introduced that were passed into law and which ones were not passed into law. Also take a look at which policies the COngress introduced and which ones were passed into law. I was in college and grad school at the time so maybe I missed something but this is I how remember the 90s. Clinton won the election in 92 and attempted to implement his social reform he ran on (socialized medicine is the main thing I remember). The American public rejected this and there was an out pouring in the 94 midterm election to put Republicans into Congress. Clinton rebounded by dropping his social reforms and signing the legislation passed by the Republican Congress and was reelected in 1996 as Americans were happy wiht the direction the country was taking. After that I started playing more poker etc, so I know little of what happened in Clinton's second term. I remember seeing a lot of partisan bickering on TV, but I was too busy playign poker to pay much attention to it. If there was a major event I left out in the 90s please enlighten me.

[cardcounter0]

Sorry, but is English your second language? If you went to college and grad school in the US I would see about getting a refund.

Here is a question for you: Is the sky green or do you still beat your wife?

[Randy_Refeld]

[ QUOTE ]
Sorry, but is English your second language? If you went to college and grad school in the US I would see about getting a refund.

Here is a question for you: Is the sky green or do you still beat your wife?

[/ QUOTE ]

Here I will try to simplfly wiht a series of true flase quesiont for you.

(1) The Democrats have no stated policy agenda.
(2) The Democrats benefit fomr dead soldiers in Iraq.
(3) The Democrats are hoping for more US deaths in Iraq.
(4) The resitance to US forces would decrease if the bodies of deal soldiers were not shown on TV
(5) The resistance to US forces would decrease if there were more dead terrosits were shown on TV.
(6) Bill Clinton ran on a platform of social reform in 1992
(7) The American people do not like Socialism.
(8) The COngress in the 90s set the agenda.
(9) When Republican commit perjury they resign.
(10) When Democrats commit perjury they do not resign.
(11) I have made no ad homium attacks.
(12) Cardcounter0 hopes Americans die in Iraq.
(13) Democrats benefit from promising blacks set asides.
(14) Democrats support increasing the minimum wage.
(15) Forcing the price of labor above the market clearing value results in unemployment.

I am goign back to the poekr side; feel free to PM me if any Democrats have a plan for making America better.

[ACPlayer]

[ QUOTE ]
Did they have an alternative plan?

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure they had lots of alternative plans. However, the unifying theme was that going to war wont solve anything (and they were right about this).

The anti-war people did not vote to attack Iraq. Spineless senators voted to give Bush the authority so that he could get the UN on board at least thatis how it was sold to them.

I am not defending the Democrats or the Republicans. Unlike many on this forum, IMO, discussion of issues is best done without bringing in the positions of the parties -- that is irrelevant.

[mmcd]

[ QUOTE ]
Saddam Hussein is a swell fellow that we didn't have to worry about at all.


[/ QUOTE ]

Indeed. How many religious fundamentalist nutjobs were openly operating in Iraq when he was in charge. I think the possibility of getting of getting a visit Uday and his underlings did far more to discourage terrorists from operating in Iraq than the U.S. can possibly do. Looking at it strictly from the standpoint of U.S. interests in the middle east, a brutal, repressive, secular dictatorship that is in no way tied to the United States is far better than a theocratic "democracy" installed by us.

[superleeds]

[ QUOTE ]
Remember, the number one enemy in Iraq is Zarqawi and his organization, Al Queda in Iraq. These are the people thousands of American soldiers have died fighting. They attacked us first in the United States, and then in Iraq

[/ QUOTE ]

Did Al Queda in Iraq exist on Sept 11 2001? Or even March 19 2003? What about May 1 2003?

[ QUOTE ]

If you confront a known murderer, who tells you he is armed, and after 17 times asking him to drop his weapon -- he refuses -- do you:

1) Ask him again;
2) Speak louder; or
3) Shoot.

Only a fool equates all of these options, and only a bigger fool believes that anyone who selects number 3 is guilty of a crime upon finding that the gun wasn't loaded.

[/ QUOTE ]

So now you agree with me that not all options are created equal? Lovely. So your entire point is pretty much, as they say, no longer operative.

Thanks for posting! /images/graemlins/grin.gif

The funny thing about this Randy fellow is that while he criticizes the Democrats, he openly admits to not having paid attention to the relevant times he's criticizing.

Quit being an ignorant prick, read a book and become literate before you say liberals want American soldiers dead. I was protesting the war before it began on the very grounds that people are criticizing it now. Every soldier or civilian that dies, everytime a US company overcharges the military, every new Al Qaeda recruit, and every single extra day, week, month, year we spend there is a gigantic fxcking "I told you so" to people like you that "weren't paying attention." That doesn't mean I'm happy about it.

YOU are unamerican, [censored].

[SheetWise]

[ QUOTE ]
So now you agree with me that not all options are created equal? Lovely.

[/ QUOTE ]
Of course not all options are created equal -- that's why it's so disingenuous when some politicians decide to opportunistically and selectively choose all three.

[twowords]

[ QUOTE ]

Containing Saddam did cost billions and would have continued to cost billions. In that process American lives would have continued to be put in Jeopardy just as they have for the 12 years prior to Iraqi freedom.

[/ QUOTE ]

How were we in imminent danger? This point I don't understand.

All your other points are easier to dismiss. First, you have no argument that we invaded Iraq to stop genocide because that happened more than 15 years ago, and we have not seen genocide from Saddam since. Secondly, you have no argument that we invaded Iraq to take out Al Queda in Iraq because they were not there when we invaded and they had no working relationship with Iraq. Many other countries are much more known to support terrorism and many others have much more recently suffered from genocide.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
How were we in imminent danger? This point I don't understand.

[/ QUOTE ]
I believe he's talking about the No-Fly Zone.

[Randy_Refeld]

[ QUOTE ]
That doesn't mean I'm happy about it.


[/ QUOTE ]

You didn't mention if you ARE or ARE NOT happy about it.

Why isn't the number of bad guys dead important news?

Does it help or hurt the war effort ot report the number of Americans dead?

Does it help or hurt the war effort to not report the number of bad guys dead?

Do you have any ideas on how to make this country better?

I didn't realize how slowly this board moves, I might check back here some time.

[jaxmike]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Just how big a threat was Saddam Hussein?

[/ QUOTE ]

You have just crashed through the comedic level of MMMMMM and are now heading for the level of Jaxmike.

You understand, I hope, that this is a downward course.

[/ QUOTE ]

You really are stupid aren't you [censored] head?

bush is an idiot and so are u if you think the war is justified

[SheetWise]

[ QUOTE ]
bush is an idiot and so are u if you think the war is justified

[/ QUOTE ]

bush is an idiot and so r u if u think the war is justified

FYP

[AngryCola]

[ QUOTE ]

You really are stupid aren't you [censored] head?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is pointless and unacceptable. Posts like this will not be tolerated.
Jaxmike has been suspended for seven days.

[ QUOTE ]
bush is an idiot and so are u if you think the war is justified

[/ QUOTE ]

is this allowed?

I mean honestly, Im not tattle-tailing (is that how you spell that?) but not only does he insult in this post, he makes no point about... anything.

[AngryCola]

He has been warned, as have a few others. Most people receive PM warnings from me before I take any action. I like giving people a chance to change their behavior.

Jaxmike did not receive a PM warning.
If anyone posts something that abusive, they shouldn't expect anything less than a suspension from me.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
I'll cede to the validity of your point if you can point to any one person in Iraq who has a larger bounty on their head than Zarqawi.

[/ QUOTE ]

I know a poker player who prefers to hold a pair of 5s over a bigger pair. Considers presto to be his lucky numbers. Who am I to disabuse the American political & military leadership of its stupidity ?