If you support the Iraq war you need to watch

Started by BackFire3 pages

"God .... you can thank Clinton for the ignoring Saddam"

Or, you can thank the person who is actually responsible for Saddam staying in power - Bush Senior. He had the chance to get him out of power after the Gulf war, but his incompetance prevailed once again and allowed him to stay in power. God bless the Bush's, I guess the acorn doesn't fall far from the tree.

"You can all sit here and say...."we have no business in there, there are no WMD in Iraq"

But what if we found those weapons?? huh?"

Lets worry about that when/if that happens (Which it probably won't). Keep in mind many of the people in power in this country claimed to have "good ideas" as to where these dangerous weapons were, they even gave us the idea that they knew damn near EXACTLY where they were.

But as soon as we go over there 'Oops, we screwed up, we actually don't know where they are, in fact, we have damn near no idea where these phantom weapons are. But we'll keep fighting because there MAY be some weapons that we can't seem to find. We'll justify all of this by having a vague color coded warning system that is constantly saying that there is a 'chance' of a terrorist attack, orange, or red, or yellow if we're lucky, if we make our country afraid, they will accept our lies and incompetance."

Invading a country on bad information and then continuing to fight said country after completely being wrong in your assumptions of them having weapons of mass distructions is simply poor and sloppy leadership.

Keep in mind, I'm not against the war, but I'm sick of people throwing around the defense of "well their might be weapons there, so we're justified." It's time to give up on that hope, if you're going to continue fighting over there, just be honest and say you made a mistake. But oh wait, that would involve being honest in a negative way, and that would also involve losing an aproval percentage in this country, and after all, that's all these people care about.

Begging us? if you remember correctly the UN inspectors were kicked out yet again.... at the time....

you remember incorrectly. the inspectors were there and performing random checks in accordance with the sanctions that the UN had put on Saddam. Yet that wasn't good enough for the US who went in on an illegal war without UN or pretty much any international approval. The only major G8 nation that backed us was England.

Originally posted by ElectricBugaloo
you remember incorrectly. the inspectors were there and performing random checks in accordance with the sanctions that the UN had put on Saddam. Yet that wasn't good enough for the US who went in on an illegal war without UN or pretty much any international approval. The only major G8 nation that backed us was England.

no... the UN inspectors were being ordered to leave just as they were uncovering plans to build a new long ranger rocket of French design. 😐 after a few months of debates Sadddam was given i think, its been a while, 52 days to seed power or else, and else happened.

Originally posted by BackFire
"God .... you can thank Clinton for the ignoring Saddam"

Or, you can thank the person who is actually responsible for Saddam staying in power - Bush Senior. He had the chance to get him out of power after the Gulf war, but his incompetance prevailed once again and allowed him to stay in power. God bless the Bush's, I guess the acorn doesn't fall far from the tree.

Technically it was the UN and the Arab allies fault... that time around the US only comprised of 10% of the funding and 250,000 troops once we completed the goal there was no mandate to further our work and our arabic allies at the time would not allow us to go any further. During Clinton's administration the kicking out of inspectors started.... and the compromises for 8 years and mandate said we invade but in absence we placed an embargo and economic sanctions that strangled the Iraqi population and infrastructure into what it is today. its funny because everyone blames us for destroying the infrastructure were in actuality there never was one to destroy in the first place due to the great work of Saddam... they barely had power and water access 😱

ElectricBugaloo

you remember incorrectly. the inspectors were there and performing random checks in accordance with the sanctions that the UN had put on Saddam. Yet that wasn't good enough for the US who went in on an illegal war without UN or pretty much any international approval. The only major G8 nation that backed us was England.

And when has the U.N. done anything right when it comes to conflicts between nations (with the exception of the Korean War)? Even in that war, it mainly consisted of US troops.

It's easy for the U.N. to criticize America and such, but the U.N.'s power is limited to what the nations that it's composed of chooses. The U.N. can do next to nothing when it comes to solving conflicts. And when one actually arises, they come crawling to America and expect us to be the first to jump in, then every other nation MIGHT join. :rollseye:

The U.N. still got nowhere with Saddam. They were given a chance and were complaining that the Iraqis were still interfering. Time? The U.N. had enough time.

If other nations don't want America to police the world, then don't ask America the first to step up and try to solve the conflict.

When parts of the world is in crisis (whether it be floods, earthquakes, hurricanes, famine, diseases, etc.), Americans are among the first to arrive to assist. They hate us yet aren't against us aiding them - hypocrites. 😠

Originally posted by Linkalicious
Iraqi's are killing their own Iraqi police and security forces...and it's ALLLLL America's fault. Yah sure...🙄

Errr... yeah, it is 🤨 Obviously it's our fault, because we set it up. See, just because the "Iraqi" police force is made up of Iraqi people does not make it Iraqi. It was set up by the American forces, and whatever you may see it as, that makes it American to them. The "Iraqi" government does not represent the Iraqi people because it was not created by the Iraqi people. You can try and call it a people's democracy all you want, but that won't change the fact that it's an authoritarian, foreign-imposed load of crap.

no one understands that really we have no say at all anymore in any part of the Iraqi government anymore... it is totally independant... our money just allows them to opperate till they have an income from taxes.

I never said we still had a say in it, what I said was that we were the ones who went in there, got rid of the old government, and set up a new police force and government. And again, no matter how little "say" we have in it, it will always be American to the Iraqis.

the reason that hte UN inspectors were ordered out was because the US insisted on invading despite the utter lack of evidence of WMDs.

And the 'long range' rockets that you speak of went 70 miles farther than the prescribed limit by the UN.

Originally posted by RaventheOnly
Technically it was the UN and the Arab allies fault... that time around the US only comprised of 10% of the funding and 250,000 troops once we completed the goal there was no mandate to further our work and our arabic allies at the time would not allow us to go any further. During Clinton's administration the kicking out of inspectors started.... and the compromises for 8 years and mandate said we invade but in absence we placed an embargo and economic sanctions that strangled the Iraqi population and infrastructure into what it is today. its funny because everyone blames us for destroying the infrastructure were in actuality there never was one to destroy in the first place due to the great work of Saddam... they barely had power and water access 😱

So, I'm expected to believe that Bush had the power to send troops and wage a war with Iraqi, but by the time the war had finished, he no longer had the power needed to take Saddam out of office, just because the UN said not to? Since when do the Bush's listen to the UN? GW Bush directly ignored suggestions from the UN NOT to go start this current war with Iraq, but his fater DID listen to them and allow Saddam to stay in power. If GW can disregaurd suggestions from the UN, so can his father, and he should have when it came to taking Saddam out of power after the Gulf war. I really find it hard to believe he couldn't have just said 'Nah, we're taking Saddam out" and do so. If his son could do it, so could he.

Regaurdless, how is it Clintons fault that Saddam stayed in power? From what you've just told me it was the UN's fault for disallowing the take out of Saddam. This was all before Clinton was even president.

Originally posted by BackFire
So, I'm expected to believe that Bush had the power to send troops and wage a war with Iraqi, but by the time the war had finished, he no longer had the power needed to take Saddam out of office, just because the UN said not to? Since when do the Bush's listen to the UN? GW Bush directly ignored suggestions from the UN NOT to go start this current war with Iraq, but his fater DID listen to them and allow Saddam to stay in power. If GW can disregaurd suggestions from the UN, so can his father, and he should have when it came to taking Saddam out of power after the Gulf war. I really find it hard to believe he couldn't have just said 'Nah, we're taking Saddam out" and do so. If his son could do it, so could he.

Regaurdless, how is it Clintons fault that Saddam stayed in power? From what you've just told me it was the UN's fault for disallowing the take out of Saddam. This was all before Clinton was even president.

The US was too afraid to advance without support from the allies. our logistics and fuel and ammo supply was dependant on the UN. as i said our funding was only consisting of 10% of the total operation. Our aircraft was using German airfields unlike our operation this time around was out of Turkey and Kuwait.

hysterical everyone says that GW is his daddy's lackey when in actuality he is as different as they come 😂

UN sanctions mandated direct military Intervention in response to non-compliance with sanctions after the embargo. Clinton exahausted all negotiations and played the UN negotiation game for 8 years... he launched numerous tomahawk strikes at SAM sites painting and firing onto our fighters in the "no fly zones" (alone mind you is enough to declare war) Bush senior and Clinton failed in dealing with Saddam and unknown numbers were slaughtered after numerous forgotten uprisings in Iraq after the first gulf war. There are mass graves stll being uncovered to this day of the carnage he unleashed after we humiliated him.

Originally posted by ElectricBugaloo
the reason that hte UN inspectors were ordered out was because the US insisted on invading despite the utter lack of evidence of WMDs.

And the 'long range' rockets that you speak of went 70 miles farther than the prescribed limit by the UN.

NO they were ordered to leave because Saddam kicked them out and then we went to the UN

YES just in range of Isreal and nearby neighbors capitals. 70 miles is a lot and any weapon specification outside of limits mandated are ILLEGAL, testing directly the UN. considering that the SCUDs are cheap in comparison to the newer model being introduced.

Originally posted by RaventheOnly
The US was too afraid to advance without support from the allies. our logistics and fuel and ammo supply was dependant on the UN. as i said our funding was only consisting of 10% of the total operation. Our aircraft was using German airfields unlike our operation this time around was out of Turkey and Kuwait.

hysterical everyone says that GW is his daddy's lackey when in actuality he is as different as they come 😂

UN sanctions mandated direct military Intervention in response to non-compliance with sanctions after the embargo. Clinton exahausted all negotiations and played the UN negotiation game for 8 years... he launched numerous tomahawk strikes at SAM sites painting and firing onto our fighters in the "no fly zones" (alone mind you is enough to declare war) Bush senior and Clinton failed in dealing with Saddam and unknown numbers were slaughtered after numerous forgotten uprisings in Iraq after the first gulf war. There are mass graves stll being uncovered to this day of the carnage he unleashed after we humiliated him.

I still fail to see how anyone other then the UN and Bush is responsible for Saddam staying in power. From what you've told me, it seems that sole responsability lies with the UN, and Bush for not just saying "piss off, this guys bad news" and taking him out.

I'm sure he could have gotten plenty of ammo and arms without them if he really wanted to.

The perfect time to take Saddam out was after teh Gulf war, and both Bush and the UN botched that opportunity up. Thus, the blame is squarely on them. No amount of rhetoric will make me believe that Clinton is in any way responsible for Saddam.

Whatever the case, it's the one good thing the current Bush has done is actually get Saddam out of power.

You can thank Europe and the U.N. really for Saddam STAYING in power. The French were provided the Iraqis with weapons to put down the Kurds in exchange for oil. Not to mention the "oil for food program"...lol.

Originally posted by Linkalicious
So True.

You can all sit here and say...."we have no business in there, there are no WMD in Iraq"

But what if we found those weapons?? huh?

wtf?

We have no right to invade sovereign nations to inspect for possible possesion of WMDs.

Do you think America is upfront to the international community with our weapons cappacity or technology development?

Originally posted by RaventheOnly

YES just in range of Isreal and nearby neighbors capitals. 70 miles is a lot and any weapon specification outside of limits mandated are ILLEGAL, testing directly the UN. considering that the SCUDs are cheap in comparison to the newer model being introduced.

Isreal is also in poccession of WMDs, they had a nuclear program a while ago and test detonated a prototype in 1979 with the South African government.... why doesn't Bush invade Israel or doesn't insist on UN weapon inspecters having unrestricted searches of their arsenal? Its obvious but, its important to know that it hypocritical for them to allow some nations to have nukes and others to bomb sam sites and radar faccillites along the no fly zone, impose harsh economic sanctions that dont greatly affect weapons production, and insist on inspection on and off for 11 years after their last major conflict.....

all the sides of this arguement have good and bad points. although that video at the start slightly annoyed me. cos yes its sad but hostage negotiations should have a standard answer. no. if we begin to make deals for hostages then people will merely take more hostages. they dont see the hostages as people. they are objects used at their captors discretion to gain things that they want. if they cannot obtain those fings through hostages then its not worth the effort. (and dont fink im being naive cos even i know a whole lotta hostage situations are not about getting stuff but making a point.) Infact what these people have done has been a pretty good job cos now we dont trust our leaders. make a nation not support its leader and it has a hell of a lot of problems

anyway...

ive read a lot your arguements people and ive learnt a lot. the facts are.... yes we went to war. yes we removed a tyrant (finally after it being botched up already) and yes there were no weapons of mass destruction. those are all facts.

the problem is we as the public are not told everything. there can be no winning arguement in this. if there was then we are all more naive than i thought. i know your intelligent people which is why i dont doubt that u realise that the secret services of america and the uk do stuff that we never hear about. a huge problem with this war was that there were no WMD. the original government reason for entering this war was through fear of weapons of mass destruction. the information was however incorrect. but thats the deal with the secret service game. you cannot always be sure. so we made a mistake. i agree with that. but lots of people thought there were WMD and we needed to be sure. Saddam wouldnt have been a nice guy to face if he did have them. The fact is decisions cant always be nice. we dont live in a world where its possible. therefore if (and i hope its the case although im not sure) our nations went to this war to stop Saddam having WMD or hell even just to get rid of the "bad man" (would have inserted profanity) then i dont think it was wrong. however if the others of you are right and its about oil n shit then our nations are in a sad state of affairs.

sorry for the long post and im merely giving a point. if im wrong then f*** it im wrong. il deal with it. im just adding to this already interesting debate.

p.s. backfire.... your avatar and sig disturb me

wow megaharrison did france really do that. lol i remember a loada peeps at my college supportin france for not agreeing with the war and these people at my college were saying we were going to war for oil! 😆

Top 10 Reasons for the US to Get Out of Iraq

by ERIK LEAVER

[posted online on September 24, 2004]

The US occupation of Iraq is the cause of, not the solution to, the violence and the mounting deaths that followed the invasion. During the recent fighting led by Muqtada al-Sadr in Najaf, as in countless other battles inside Iraq, authorities in Washington have misread the military and political situation. The Bush Administration uses the fighting as justification for the continued presence of foreign military forces. Yet it is precisely the presence of foreign military forces that is a major cause of the instability. Ending the US occupation by bringing the troops home now is a first step toward ending Iraq's nightmare.

Most Iraqis agree. In a poll this past June, 55 percent of Iraqis opposed the presence of US forces in Iraq. While Iraqis cheered the overthrow of the brutal regime of Saddam Hussein, they didn't sign up for a foreign military occupation as a replacement. Now it is time to let Iraqis themselves choose an alternative. Here are 10 compelling reasons the United States should get out of Iraq.

1) The Human Costs Keep Increasing
On September 7 the death toll of US soldiers reached 1,000. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has acknowledged that the insurgency is likely to turn even more violent. While the American death toll made headlines across the United States, the mounting number of Iraqi deaths, at least ten times greater, gets scant attention. The US military refuses to monitor or even estimate the number of Iraqi civilian casualties. As Gen. Tommy Franks described the Pentagon's approach earlier in Afghanistan, "We don't do body counts."

2) Iraqis Aren't Better Off
While the removal of the dictator Saddam was a welcome development for many Iraqis, the streets of Baghdad and other cities remain dangerous war zones. Clean water, electricity and even gasoline in this oil-rich country are all in even shorter supply than during the dark years of economic sanctions. Women face new restrictions and new dangers. Democracy, freedom and human rights appear out of reach. And Iraq remains occupied by 160,000 foreign troops, with all of the indignity that military occupation brings.

3) The War Is Bankrupting America
This year's federal budget deficit will reach a new record--$422 billion. The Bush Administration's combination of massive spending on the war and tax cuts for the wealthy means less money for social spending. The Administration's fiscal-year 2005 budget request proposes deep cuts in critical domestic programs. It also virtually freezes funding for domestic discretionary programs other than homeland security. Among the programs the Administration seeks to eliminate: grants for low-income schools and family literacy; Community Development Block Grants; Rural Housing and Economic Development; and Arts in Education grants.

4) Halliburton's War Profiteering
The US government's Iraq reconstruction process has cost both Iraqis and Americans. Instead of boosting Iraqi self-determination by granting contracts to experienced Iraqi businesses and working to lower the huge unemployment problem inside Iraq, the US government has favored US firms with strong political ties. Major contracts worth billions of dollars have been awarded with limited or no competition. American auditors and the media have documented numerous cases of fraud, waste and incompetence. The most egregious problems are attributed to Halliburton, Vice President Dick Cheney's former firm and the largest recipient of Iraq-related contracts.

5) The "International Coalition" Is Fleeing
The "coalition," always more symbolically than militarily significant, is unraveling. While the impact is felt more at the political than military level, the Bush Administration's claim that it is "leading an international coalition" in Iraq is increasingly indefensible. Eight nations have now left the coalition and many other countries have reduced their contingents. Singapore has left only thirty-three soldiers in Iraq out of 191, and Moldova's forces have dwindled to twelve.

6) Recruitment for Al Qaeda Has Accelerated
The war against Iraq is leaving US citizens more vulnerable to terrorist attacks at home and abroad. According to the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies, the best-known and most authoritative source of information on global military capabilities and trends, the war in Iraq has accelerated recruitment for Al Qaeda and made the world less safe. It estimates worldwide Al Qaeda membership now at 18,000, with 1,000 active in Iraq. It states that the occupation has become the organization's "potent global recruitment pretext," has divided the United States and Britain from their allies and has weakened the war on terrorism.

7) The War Is Draining First Responders From Our Communities
Since the beginning of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, 364,000 Reserve and National Guard troops have been called for military service. This spring alone, 35,000 new Guard troops were sent to Iraq. Their deployment puts a particularly heavy burden on their home communities, because many of them serve as "first responders," including police, firefighters and emergency medical personnel. A poll conducted by the Police Executive Research Forum found that 44 percent of police forces across the nation have lost officers as a result of deployment to Iraq.

8) Torture at Abu Ghraib
The Bush Administration claimed that the liberation of Iraqis from the inhumane rule of a dictator was a good-enough reason for taking military action against that country. Now investigations of the US military's torture and abuse of Iraqi prisoners in Abu Ghraib has stripped the United States of even that wobbly claim. The Bush Administration has tried to blame a "few bad apples" for the torture, but abuse has been widespread, with more than 300 allegations of abuse in Afghanistan, Iraq or Guantánamo. Many more may exist, in light of the fact that Army investigators revealed in early September at a Congressional hearing that as many as 100 detainees were hidden from the International Committee of the Red Cross at the request of the CIA. This was part of a larger strategy by the government, described by Human Rights Watch as "decisions made by the Bush Administration to bend, ignore, or cast rules aside."

9) Many Americans Oppose the War
Polls conducted in August 2004 by the CNN/USA TODAY/Gallup and the Pew Research Center showed a great divide in the country: 51 percent believe that "the situation in Iraq was not worth going to war over" and 52 percent disapprove of the way President Bush is handling the war. Almost 60 percent believe that President Bush does not "have a clear plan for bringing the situation in Iraq to a successful conclusion."

10) No "Sovereignty" Has Been Transferred
The US occupation of Iraq officially ended on June 28, in a secret ceremony in Baghdad. Officially, the Americans handed "full sovereignty" to the Iraqi Interim Government. This was sovereignty in name, not in deed. Not only do 160,000 troops remain to control the streets, but the "100 Orders" of former CPA head Paul Bremer remain to control the economy. Although many thought the "end" of the occupation would also mean the end of the orders, on his last day in Iraq, Bremer simply transferred authority for the orders to the undemocratically appointed interim Prime Minister, Iyad Allawi, who has longtime ties to the CIA.

👆 Excellent article!