UN Ambassador John Bolton

[Craig Vecchione]

Originally posted by Sixgun77 The only thing I believe Iraq may have had to do with 9/11 is that maybe some of the terrorists were in Iraq. The general populace didn't set out to attack us.

 

 

And we didn't attack the general populace. Keep in mind that it's "insurgents", mostly from outside Iraq, not the US forces or the Iraqi people, who keep this war going. Our troops would be long gone otherwise, and Iraq would have its own government much more established.

 

Regarding terrorism and Iraq, Hussein sheltered and supported quite a few over the course of decades, not the least of which was the Abu Nidal Organization, which was responsible for the assasination attempt on GHW Bush in 1993. Hussein's regime and his history with Kuwait just happened to make Iraq the worst place in the Middle East. Bad luck for him.

[bnyswonger]

Originally posted by Craigv And we didn't attack the general populace. Keep in mind that it's "insurgents", mostly from outside Iraq, not the US forces or the Iraqi people, who keep this war going. Our troops would be long gone otherwise, and Iraq would have its own government much more established. Regarding terrorism and Iraq, Hussein sheltered and supported quite a few over the course of decades, not the least of which was the Abu Nidal Organization, which was responsible for the assasination attempt on GHW Bush in 1993. Hussein's regime and his history with Kuwait just happened to make Iraq the worst place in the Middle East. Bad luck for him.

 

 

 

So I guess it's OK to unilaterally go in and take him out.

You have to be kidding me. Craig, you aren't that stupid. Well over 100,00 Iraqis are dead...well over. You think they were all soldiers? Our troops are still there because Bush had & has no exit strategy. What was the first thing they secured in Bagdad?

The oil ministry.

 

You can spin and excuse and rationalize all you want to Craig - you're president lied to you and started a pre-planned war based on stacked & stroked intelligence and now 1800 of your countrymen are dead and over 40,000 seriously injured. For, what was it? WMD? oh no, wait, to liberate the Iraqis! Osama Bin who? The guy who actually committed the attack? Oh we'll get him...just like OJ was going to find the real killer...

 

So here we are 3 years later and the Iraqis still don't have drinking water or electricity. Over 8 billion dollars earmarked for reconstruction unaccounted for. No wonder they hate us & allow foreign crazies to come in and take potshots at our troops. Nobody likes to be occupied. Gee I sure feel safe now.

 

I'm sure glad the Iraqis can vote now. If the Iraqis could vote tomorrow on our leaving immediately, you'd see a mind-boggling turnout.

 

If Bill Clinton can get impeached for lying about a blow job, it's time for this corrupt, crooked administration to be held accountable for {censored}ing up again & again & again.

 

Or do you also like the torture?

[treble in trouble]

to try and rerail the discussion:

- Bolton's nomination was not simply held up by "obstructionist" democrats but also from moderate republicans. It was Republican Senator George Voinovich of Ohio who's compromise with Chairman Lugar of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that sent Bolton to a vote on the Senate floor but without a committee endorsement. Republican Senator Lincoln Chafee (RI) was also at the time considering voting against Bolton. Republicans who point the finger to blame Democrats must also acknowledge that their own party is partially responsible for these hang-ups

- Colin Powell has refused to endorse Bolton's nomination.

- There has been an ongoing Senate investigation as to the matters that Bolton has previously sought out information of colleagues who did not share his opinion so he could intimidate them.

- I agree that the UN is in some serious need of repair, but I also believe that John Bolton and his track record bare evidence that he is very unqualified for this position. If Bolton made it this easy for Dems to win over Moderate Republicans that speaks volumes about his charecter / credentials. By all means the President has the right to choose his nominations. But its hard to imagine any other candidate who would have as much stick to him as Bolton has.

[Sixgun77]

I agree with certain things that both Buy and Craig are saying. Hell, if AMERICANS could vote tomorrow on whether to bring our trops home, I bet we'd see a mighty big turnout as well. I know I want us out of there. I really wish that the Iraqi government WOULD allow everyone to vote on that.

Craig, I wasn't arguing that we went and attacked the general populace, I was just stating my thoughts.

I do think that Saddam needed to be removed from power, as well as Osama. I think that we should have left Iraq a long time ago. If the Iraqis, not just their leaders truly want us to stay and help them, then fine. But if not, then we should now get the hell out of their country after removing Saddam and failing to capture Osama. Time to return home, regroup, and devise a new strategy for finding Osama. We also might want to think about investing more in petroleum alternatives. Oh, wait, that road doesn't enrich the already rich. My bad.

It is grievous that civilians have been killed in the course of this war, but has there ever been a war where that didn't happen? That's not to say that everything within reason shouldn't be done to keep civilians from harm during a war, just that it does happen, it's one of the many unfortunate things about war. Our own civilians were killed both during the Revolutionary and Civil Wars here.

[Sunken]

Originally posted by DrSquirley Id move to sweden. In all likely hood i may anyway. -Alex

 

 

You

[Craig Vecchione]

Originally posted by bnyswonger So I guess it's OK to unilaterally go in and take him out. You have to be kidding me. Craig, you aren't that stupid. Well over 100,00 Iraqis are dead...well over. You think they were all soldiers? Our troops are still there because Bush had & has no exit strategy. What was the first thing they secured in Bagdad? The oil ministry. You can spin and excuse and rationalize all you want to Craig - you're president lied to you and started a pre-planned war based on stacked & stroked intelligence and now 1800 of your countrymen are dead and over 40,000 seriously injured. For, what was it? WMD? oh no, wait, to liberate the Iraqis! Osama Bin who? The guy who actually committed the attack? Oh we'll get him...just like OJ was going to find the real killer... So here we are 3 years later and the Iraqis still don't have drinking water or electricity. Over 8 billion dollars earmarked for reconstruction unaccounted for. No wonder they hate us & allow foreign crazies to come in and take potshots at our troops. Nobody likes to be occupied. Gee I sure feel safe now. I'm sure glad the Iraqis can vote now. If the Iraqis could vote tomorrow on our leaving immediately, you'd see a mind-boggling turnout. If Bill Clinton can get impeached for lying about a blow job, it's time for this corrupt, crooked administration to be held accountable for {censored}ing up again & again & again. Or do you also like the torture?

 

 

Okay, I guess we can resurrect this tired old debate one more time.

 

Even our (note that I didn't write "your"....they're *our* presidents, voted for 'em or not, like 'em or not) blowjob-lovin' prez acknowledged that Iraq and Hussien was a huge problem, over ten years ago. He and several thinktanks were very concerned and knew that something drastic had to be done over there. Unfortunately he let Osama go free when we had him, thanks to our decimated intelligence capability, Then he got his dick so tangled up that his second term was nothing more than damage control, and other foreign adventures hadn't gone so well, so any additional forays were out of the question. As goes politics, so goes the country, and in this case, the world.

 

I'm as cynical and jaded as the next guy, but neither you nor I know whether anyone lied, or even had to, to get the war "started". I put it in quotes because it wasn't started by us, and it was started many years before we invaded. It doesn't matter if we ever find anything closer to a WMD than a can of Ajax in Iraq...the place and the person were over ripe to be taken out.

 

To write "Osama bin who?" seriously disrespects the thousands of coalition troops who've dedicated or sacrificed their lives to finding him. It's been a major effort, and I doubt throwing more money or troops at the effort will increase the odds of success. It's another casualty of our lack of intelligence capability.

 

A common theme throughout this message is intelligence. In my opinion this is the root cause of the entire problem...everything back to WTC, USS Cole, all of it. Following the demise of the USSR, the US embarked on a cost-cutting spree that decimated our military power and intelligence capability. Bush Sr. and the Democratic Congress share equal blame in starting this, and Clinton deserves as much in expanding it. Seemed like a good idea at the time....balance the budget by not spending money for spys and bombs that aren't needed since the Cold War's been won. In hindsight it's the single largest tragedy since the end of WWII. We'll be digging out from under this one for decades.

[Smorgasboy]

Originally posted by Craigv I'm as cynical and jaded as the next guy, but neither you nor I know whether anyone lied, or even had to, to get the war "started". I put it in quotes because it wasn't started by us, and it was started many years before we invaded. It doesn't matter if we ever find anything closer to a WMD than a can of Ajax in Iraq...the place and the person were over ripe to be taken out.

 

 

I take issue with this. Was "taking out" a dictator based on a dubious hunch (which was loudly disputed at the time and which turned out to be misguided) worth scuttling morale in the armed services, seriously hindering recruitment efforts, stretching military resources to the breaking point, and damaging US reputation around the world?

 

We KNOW, for a fact, that at this point both Iran and North Korea have real, legitimate nuclear programs. We don't need to draw fantasy mockups of mobile weapons labs, or rely on bogus Nigerian documents written on decades-old, wrong-era stationery to help sell a bogeyman story--this time we actually have real reason to be concerned that two of our sworn enemies have real-world nuclear facilities and programs.

 

Now I wouldn't support a unilateral attack against either of these countries, but it would be a great luxury if we had the ability to stand tall against these foes, wield international influence based on our integrity and strength, and have a leg to stand on as a leader of Freedom and morality.

 

Instead, we're raising the recruitment age to try and maintain an adequate army, holding super-double-secret kangaroo military tribunals, trying to justify why we ignored the Geneva Conventions, and fielding international scorn for torturing POWs. Terrorist ranks are swelling, and sleeper cells are rampant. Meanwhile, 3 years later, 21 marines, a journalist, and an interpreter have been killed in Iraq in the last 2 days alone.

 

...and all this for a few 20-year old, rusted out, leaky chemical warheads dug out of the sand in some dusty hellhole half-way around the world.

 

Simply not worth it.

[Craig Vecchione]

Originally posted by Smorgasboy I take issue with this. Was "taking out" a dictator based on a dubious hunch (which was loudly disputed at the time and which turned out to be misguided) worth scuttling morale in the armed services, seriously hindering recruitment efforts, stretching military resources to the breaking point, and damaging US reputation around the world?

 

 

No, but that's not the only problem our boy caused. Do you really feel he should have been left alone?

 

I'm pretty sure Sadam's upcoming trials have little or nothing to do with hiding WMD's. The Iraqis apparently think he's guilty of a lot of pretty serious crimes. Unless someone else was actually leading Iraq when the crimes occured, he did some pretty horrible things that I think anyone not trying to make a political argument would agree were worth the huge trouble of removing him. It certainly was never going to happen internally...he had a complete lock on the place, and we both know the UN would never take action.

 

Which brings us to the next point:

 

 

Originally posted by Smorgasboy Now I wouldn't support a unilateral attack against either of these countries, but it would be a great luxury if we had the ability to stand tall against these foes, wield international influence based on our integrity and strength, and have a leg to stand on as a leader of Freedom and morality.

 

 

"We" have to take all the weight here? Where's the {censored} is the rest of the world? Is no other country threatened by nuclear proliferation in NK and Iran?

 

You see, we are truly alone on this planet, as the UN won't do {censored}...ten-plus years of letting Saddam flip the bird at the world is ample proof of this...and no other country can or will form an alliance to stop them. Sorry, I stand corrected...the UK does have the balls to stand up for itself.

 

But by and large, it's a planet of sheep.

[lug]

Since Bush jr. took office, The Talaban are out of power, Saddam (who by most international accounts had killed 600,000 of his own CIVILIANS and his sons showed no signs of slowing down) is out of power, and 60 million people can actively select who they want to govern them. If Bush jr. wasn't in office, most likely none of this would have happened. Hate the guy all you want, question his motives, question his intelegence, but simply put, he does get results instead of just issuing "strong condemnations".

[Craig Vecchione]

Originally posted by lug Since Bush jr. took office, The Talaban are out of power, Saddam (who by most international accounts had killed 600,000 of his own CIVILIANS and his sons showed no signs of slowing down) is out of power, and 60 million people can actively select who they want to govern them. If Bush jr. wasn't in office, most likely none of this would have happened. Hate the guy all you want, question his motives, question his intelegence, but simply put, he does get results instead of just issuing "strong condemnations".

 

 

 

Yeah really; just look how effective all the strong condemnations of your MP3's has been......

[Smorgasboy]

Originally posted by Craigv No, but that's not the only problem our boy caused. Do you really feel he should have been left alone? I'm pretty sure Sadam's upcoming trials have little or nothing to do with hiding WMD's. The Iraqis apparently think he's guilty of a lot of pretty serious crimes. Unless someone else was actually leading Iraq when the crimes occured, he did some pretty horrible things that I think anyone not trying to make a political argument would agree were worth the huge trouble of removing him. It certainly was never going to happen internally...he had a complete lock on the place, and we both know the UN would never take action. Which brings us to the next point: "We" have to take all the weight here? Where's the {censored} is the rest of the world? Is no other country threatened by nuclear proliferation in NK and Iran? You see, we are truly alone on this planet, as the UN won't do {censored}...ten-plus years of letting Saddam flip the bird at the world is ample proof of this...and no other country can or will form an alliance to stop them. Sorry, I stand corrected...the UK does have the balls to stand up for itself. But by and large, it's a planet of sheep.

 

 

 

There are a lot of dictators in the world who have committed serious crimes, so where is the conservative outcry to police all those areas? Their conspicuous silence when it comes to the genocide being perpetrated in Darfur, for instance, gives cause to wonder if the newfound conservative concern for human rights isn't just after-the-fact, politically expedient justification for royally {censored}ing up the run-up to the Iraq invasion.

 

In Darfur there's full-scale genocide being perpetrated. Funny, but I haven't heard President Bush recommend an invasion yet. Is there oil in the Sudan?

 

...and I agree that the US should not bear the burden alone, which is exactly why it makes sense to try and strengthen the UN--to make it accountable and effective. Nominating a US ambassador who will be untrusted, disliked, and rendered completely ineffective due to his lack of support both from the US Senate and his colleagues in the UN, seems like an incredibly unwise strategy to make the UN a relevant organization. Wisdom and long-term planning do not appear to be Bush II's strong point, however. He seems to be more concerned with kicking ass and taking names--not necessarily great foreign policy imho.

[bnyswonger]

Originally posted by Craigv I'm as cynical and jaded as the next guy, but neither you nor I know whether anyone lied, or even had to, to get the war "started". I put it in quotes because it wasn't started by us, and it was started many years before we invaded. It doesn't matter if we ever find anything closer to a WMD than a can of Ajax in Iraq...the place and the person were over ripe to be taken out. To write "Osama bin who?" seriously disrespects the thousands of coalition troops who've dedicated or sacrificed their lives to finding him. It's been a major effort, and I doubt throwing more money or troops at the effort will increase the odds of success. It's another casualty of our lack of intelligence capability.

The REAL disrespect is the willful abandonment of the pursuit of the guy who bragged about killing our citizens on our soil. I was glued to the news during the whole run-up and there never, I mean NEVER a concrete legitimate reason for for invasion. If you can make a solid case for something, it's not that difficult to gain world consnsus & support.

Tell me when in our country's 229 year history we've "taken out" any foreign power because they might pose a threat?

The most serious lack of intelligence we have is at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

What do you suppose would have happened to Bill Clinton had he {censored}ed up on this scale?

He may be my president too, but I think he's the worst one we've had in my lifetime. :p

I'm not alone either. If you check the election results from yesterday's Ohio's House District 2 election - Schmidt vs. Hackett you'll see that staunchly conservative southern Ohio which has been a GOP stronghold for as long as I can remember came within 2 points of sending an anti-war Iraq vet Dem who was outspent 3-1 in campaign funds to the House. The worm is turning.

[Smorgasboy]

Originally posted by lug Since Bush jr. took office, The Talaban are out of power, Saddam (who by most international accounts had killed 600,000 of his own CIVILIANS and his sons showed no signs of slowing down) is out of power, and 60 million people can actively select who they want to govern them. If Bush jr. wasn't in office, most likely none of this would have happened. Hate the guy all you want, question his motives, question his intelegence, but simply put, he does get results instead of just issuing "strong condemnations".

 

 

Evidence is surfacing that the Taliban is regaining strength in Afghanistan, heroin production in the region has exploded, Osama is potentially still living free within the country (or just over the border), well over 100,000 Iraqi CIVILIANS have been killed by collateral damage and insurgent bombings in the last three years alone, and the anti-American insurgents don't appear to be slowing down.

 

That doesn't seem like good results to me, that seems like inept execution of a poorly planned strategy. We could have--and should have--done better. I don't share your enthusiasm at the results. BTW, did you read that 14 more US Marines were killed today?

[lug]

Originally posted by Smorgasboy Evidence is surfacing that the Taliban is regaining strength in Afghanistan, heroin production in the region has exploded, Osama is potentially still living free within the country (or just over the border), well over 100,000 Iraqi CIVILIANS have been killed by collateral damage and insurgent bombings in the last three years alone, and the anti-American insurgents don't appear to be slowing down. That doesn't seem like good results to me, that seems like inept execution of a poorly planned strategy. We could have--and should have--done better. I don't share your enthusiasm at the results. BTW, did you read that 14 more US Marines were killed today?

 

 

The 100,000 number has been shown to be pretty bogus. It includes thing such as some old guy having a heart attack and the family claiming it was because of "war worry", etc. A more acurate number can be found at http://www.iraqbodycount.net/ , definately NOT a Bush friendly site but at least has a real methodology. They say from 23 to 26,000 which averages less than Saddam killed on average during PEACE time, not in the middle of a war zone. To blame Bush for deaths caused by terrorist mainly imported from other countries is a bit of a stretch anyway. He can be held accountable for troop deaths, all Cammander-in-Chiefs are just by the title. You may not share my "enthusiasm" as you put it but the simple fact is more people have been freed by Bush than by any other president since WWII.

[Craig Vecchione]

Originally posted by Smorgasboy ...and I agree that the US should not bear the burden alone, which is exactly why it makes sense to try and strengthen the UN--to make it accountable and effective. Nominating a US ambassador who will be untrusted, disliked, and rendered completely ineffective due to his lack of support both from the US Senate and his colleagues in the UN, seems like an incredibly unwise strategy to make the UN a relevant organization. Wisdom and long-term planning do not appear to be Bush II's strong point, however. He seems to be more concerned with kicking ass and taking names--not necessarily great foreign policy imho.

Forget the UN. The League of Nations failed miserably, and so has the UN. As long as countries will (rightfully) look after their best interests, there's simply no way for it to work. We could put anyone in that position and it simply wouldn't matter. Forget about trying to appease the world. We've kissed asses for decades and what has it gotten us?

Which leads to the next point. Which is more important to the US; an oil-rich country bordering an ally with 25% of the known oil reserves in the world, or a country with none? Which is a greater threat to global stability? Who gets 'fixed' first, or at all?

My bottom line is that Hussein was an active (not potential, bnyswonger) threat to global stability and to our country, in both long and short-term context. He disregarded the UN, he killed his own people, he verbalized his intentions to gain nuclear cabability, he invaded Kuwait....where should we end this list? He needed to go, and the only way was by force. Sucks that it had to happen this way, but it wasn't going to happen any other way. Well, we could always just wait for him to kick, or perhaps find God and join a Christian fellowship.

I know we'll never agree on any of this. Most of you debating me have a hatred that won't die, and it's not my intention to change that. I'm not thrilled with everything Bush has done either. But I understand the situation and know that this is the best that can be done in a bad situation. Does anyone really think Al Gore or John Kerry would have done better with a Republican Congress? Doubtful, really.

[bnyswonger]

The UN is at least a forum where wrongs can attempt to be righted before people start shooting. It doesn't always work the way we'd like it to, but it's better nothing. So no, I won't dismiss the UN on your or Hannity's say so, thank you very much.

Were you really afraid Saddam was threatening us? You've gotta be kidding.

You concede that it's all really about the oil. That's pretty sad.

I think either Gore or Kerry would have used better judgement. You don't go war unless all other options have failed.

The biggest threat to the US right now is our own greed & arrogance and the unbridled power & influence multinational mega corporations.

[Craig Vecchione]

Originally posted by bnyswonger The UN is at least a forum where wrongs can attempt to be righted before people start shooting. It doesn't always work the way we'd like it to, but it's better nothing. So no, I won't dismiss the UN on your or Hannity's say so, thank you very much. Were you really afraid Saddam was threatening us? You've gotta be kidding. You concede that it's all really about the oil. That's pretty sad. I think either Gore or Kerry would have used better judgement. You don't go war unless all other options have failed. The biggest threat to the US right now is our own greed & arrogance and the unbridled power & influence multinational mega corporations.

 

 

No sir, I didn't state nor do I concede that "it's all really about the oil". As with most all foreign issues, it's a lot more complicated than that. But even it were only about oil, that's real, and yes, it is indeed sad. It's ALL sad.

 

And I stated that Hussein was a real threat to global stability. I'll stand on that. He condoned, supported, sheltered and funded terrorists. He attacked Kuwait with designs on Saudi Arabia. He voiced intentions to get nukes. How much more is enough for you to recognize a threat? Hell, a couple of poor guys with boxcutters were enough of a threat. One guy with a large arsenal, plenty of oil and money, and intentions of taking down the oil producing countries around him is threat enough for me.

 

We need only look at how the forum of the UN performed in regard to Iraq following Desert Storm to see just how useless it's been. All it took was France and Germany to not go along with the need to take action against Hussein, because of their own economic interest in Iraq, to stymie the entire process. Can't say I blame either country for looking out for themselves. It's how the world works. As long as there's one person with ambition/greed/a mission, there's gonna be trouble.

[Jugghaid]

Tell me when in our country's 229 year history we've "taken out" any foreign power because they might pose a threat?

 

 

Most recently..........

Bosnia, at the request of the UN.

 

There's also Gulf War I, Panama, Grenada, Vietnam, the Korean War, WWII in europe, WWI, etc etc. None of our enemies in those wars directly attacked the United States. No real difference here.

[B-Bottom]

Originally posted by bnyswonger


I'm curious where the arrogance comes into play as well. And the last time I checked America was not the only country that is home to "multinational mega corporations". Why let's take Japan for example. Off the top of my head I can name about 6 giant companies that are based out of Japan. I suppose it was American "arrogance" that completely rebuilt Japan, turning it into one of the worlds economic superpowers. That "arrogance" was again shown in force when the US instituted the Marshall Plan. Americas "arrogance" was again shown in force when we came to the aid of the Vietnamese and Korean peoples or the hundreds upon hundreds of others we've helped or tried to help through out our countries relatively short history. And what do we get for such things? We're called fat, lazy and stupid. Our leaders are demonized and burnt in effigy. What's worse is much of this comes from within our countries borders. Does that mean one should just roll over and agree with every policy? Of course not, and I for one don't agree with some things (the open borders being the main one).
Now one of the main cases that people try to make is that we did it for the oil. Well..............duh? Was that the only reason we went in? Of course not. But when people try to make it their argument that we did it for oil, I say to them no {censored} Sherlock. Do you really think we'd give two {censored}s about a dusty hell hole in a hostile part of the world if it didn't have oil? Oil is a huge part of our economy as well as everyday life. Can you imagine what would happen had Saddam not been taken out of Kuwait? And then moved onto Saudi Arabia like he intended? Vested interest. I mean besides all the stuff we know that he did and was doing, can you imagine what would have happened if he had been granted that much power?
Keep this in mind next time you see protesters or even partaking in such n event, or supporting douche bags like Sean Penn, George Clooney, Michael Moore, Hanoi Jane, Rolling Stone, Dave Matthews band or the hundreds of other misguided ill informed souls. This in an exert from a member of the North Vietnamese Army;
The Wall Street Journal (August 3, 1995) published an interview with Bui Tin who served on the General Staff of the North Vietnam Army and received the unconditional surrender of South Vietnam on April 30, 1975. During the interview Mr.. Tin was asked if the American antiwar movement was important to Hanoi's victory. Mr.. Tin responded "It was essential to our strategy" referring to the war being fought on two fronts, the Vietnam battlefield and back home in America through the antiwar movement on college campuses and in the city streets. He further stated the North Vietnamese leadership listened to the American evening news broadcasts "to follow the growth of the American antiwar movement."


Visits to Hanoi made by persons such as Jane Fonda, former Attorney General Ramsey Clark and various church ministers "gave us confidence that we should hold on in the face of battlefield reverses." Mr.. Tin surmised that "America lost because of its democracy; through dissent and protest it lost the ability to mobilize a will to win." Mr.. Tin further advised that General Vo Nguyen Giap (Commanding General of the North Vietnam Army) said the 1968 Tet Offensive was a defeat.

The military defeat of North Vietnam after the Tet Offensive of 1968 became a political victory for North Vietnam because of anti-war demonstrations and the sensationalism of the news media. The North Vietnamese interpreted the U.S. reaction to these events as the weakening of America's resolve to win the war. The North Vietnamese believed that victory could be theirs, if they stayed their course

sounds familiar huh

[Craig Vecchione]

+1 B-B, +1

[bnyswonger]

Originally posted by Jugghaid Most recently.......... Bosnia, at the request of the UN. There's also Gulf War I, Panama, Grenada, Vietnam, the Korean War, WWII in europe, WWI, etc etc. None of our enemies in those wars directly attacked the United States. No real difference here.

 

 

Juggs, if I didn't have to get to back to work I'd point out why each of these examples are not the same situation.

[Craig Vecchione]

Originally posted by bnyswonger Juggs, if I didn't have to get to back to work I'd point out why each of these examples are not the same situation.

So you admit you're wrong. I like that about you.

[Jugghaid]

Originally posted by bnyswonger Juggs, if I didn't have to get to back to work I'd point out why each of these examples are not the same situation.

I can wait.

Also I realize there are some differences. No 2 situations will be exactly alike. However, the common theme is that Korea, Vietnam, Panama, Grenada, Germany in 1941, Milosevic, Kaiser Wilhelm, none of them was a "direct threat" (as many people like to constantly point out Iraq wasn't) to the USA. They weren't going to be invading our shores any time soon.

They were, however, a great danger to, or had already attacked our allies (you can equate Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Israel here to France, Britain, Poland, etc).

They were considered a threat to US interests (communism for Vietnam and Korea, Terrorism for Iraq).

They committed genocide and other atrocities (Bosnia, Germany, Iraq)

They were in violation of prior peace accords drawn up as terms of surrender in a prior conflict (Germany, Iraq)

The list could go on and on. Of course no situation is EXACTLY the same as another, but there are far more similarities than dissimilarities between these examples and the situation we are currently in with Iraq.

The invasion of Iraq and the removal of SH is really no different than most of these examples. It's ALMOST identical to Bosnia. The justification was there. It needed to happen. The fact that the current administration completely blew it and felt they had to embellish the multitude of reasons why we should go in there doesn't change the fact that it needed to be done. It just makes them look really stupid and give their opposition fodder for political haranguing.


EDIT: And let's also be honest about all of this faulty intelligence. A lot of it came from France, Germany, and Russia, who then screamed when we actually did something about it. Why do you think that is?

[the_big_geez]

A few freindly reminders:

The present activities in Iraq are not new. They are a resumption of hostilities; hostilities that previously had been quelled by a formal cease-fire, NOT by an actual making of peace.

The reasons for resuming these hostilities were succinctly outlined by President Bush in not one but two speeches, both of which are still readily perused in text format on the White House website. A thumbnail of those reasons is the repeated disregard of numerous United Nations Resolutions sanctioning Hussein's government.

Of those member nations which are truly united, only a few (but certainly more than can be called 'unilateral') were willing to enforce said resolutions, and this is what they did.



Now, as for the WMD argument, I want you all to know that somewhere in the state of California I have hidden something large, and of immense value. I had no economic barrier to inhibit my ability to hide it. It may or may not be in pieces and all in the same place. The hiding place(s) may or may not be actively patrolled and/or booby-trapped.

Start looking...

[bbl]

Originally posted by Craigv I'd be willing to bet there are more liberals clinging to this statement than there are people who actually believe it.

How much you wanna bet?

Not clinging at all. I hear it all the time. It's a popular justification for the war among the ignorant.

Heck, one of those kids on the Real World said it.

And you know the Real World crew is an accurate representation of America!