Power transfer in Iraq

by **Bagginses** » Mon Jun 28, 2004 8:13 pm

Originally posted by Pierce
I certainly wouldn't want to sit back and watch Saddam and Bin Laden build up more attacks against us in his nice presidential palace's though, that's for sure.

You like to make nice little concise statements but you don't back them up with any evidence, some citations and references would really help your cause.

-Bagginses

by **Colonel Ingus** » Mon Jun 28, 2004 8:38 pm

Every nation involved in the UN agreed that Iraq had WMD's We have tons of evidence out there but here in America its not well reported. I have heard both Britain and Russia confirm intelligence that the media here reports as false and they are confused as to why we deny it? The whole point of what you refer to at the UN wasn't wether or not they had the weapons. It was wether or not to start a war based on those weapons (profits were involved!).

You would be more correct in blaming both the current administration and the previous administration. I lay most of the blame on the previous administration. It's a rule of thumb that a president's policies aren't truly in effect until into his third year.

You may not remember it but the WTC was bombed once before and it sure wasn't during the current administrations tenure.

Now between 1997-2001 were the CIA stations increased? He didn't say a damn thing about that.

And who was in charge from 1997-2001?

One thing I don't get is how people can't seem to grasp how we are killing terrorists over there. It IS a big magnet. You want to kill Americans? Come to Iraq and fight their soldiers! This to me seems a much better plan than "Come to America and kill the unarmed civilians!"

I'm pretty pissed about the amount of money spent also. Hell lets at least be self serving and do what the anti war movement has claimed all along. Lets take 90 billion in oil as payment.

by **Pierce** » Mon Jun 28, 2004 8:46 pm

You like to make nice little concise statements but you don't back them up with any evidence, some citations and references would really help your cause.

I sure as hell don't think they would just sit back and relax the whole time, do you?!? They would most def be thinking of more ways to kill americans.

by **King** » Mon Jun 28, 2004 8:50 pm

For some reason, i don't think there were as many terrorists in Iraq before the Iraq war than there was after the regime fell.

I agree with you Col. when you say you don't want any americans to die here... but what people fail to realize is that with the way the world has so radically changed for us, it has become extremely difficult for any attack in the states to go off without a hitch. People, everyday people are aware that inaction can lead to even more carnage.

I'd like to think that American citizens have learned a hard lesson from 9-11. My personal opinion is that we should've completed our first goal (capturing bin Laden and brining Al Queda to a halt) instead of embarking on a second goal.

I'm glad you can rationally support your views, Col. thats what makes these debates more fulfilling. We'll at least to me. I don't think i can talk on this subject anymore for a while, gotta wait a few more weeks to see what the world brings us.

by **Pierce** » Mon Jun 28, 2004 9:01 pm

These are indeed great debates.

IMHO, I also would have liked to capture Bin Laden first but at least Saddam isn't still moving from place to place in the desert.

I think we all can agree that it's a very sticky situation over there in Iraq, but now that we're in, we're in. Whether or not going to war was the right choice, we've got to get them while we're there now. I just think that if we let up and/or pull out, the terrorists will have won and will celebrate by blowing up some American strip mall.

by **cavalierlwt** » Mon Jun 28, 2004 9:59 pm

Iraq was calculated risk. I can't say it was a good or bad idea, history will bear that conclusion. I don't like us being there, I don't like seeing Coalition soldiers killed. Like I say though, History will judge. It's easy to see what GWB was hoping for though--not some retarded notion that we would get 'free oil', but instead he took a gamble on an action that he thought would solve many problems.
-Sanctions weren't working (they don't really work against dictators, do they?), yet they couldn't drop sanctions and let Saddam out of the box...solution=Regime Change
-No Middle East democracy. It's much easier to deal with a democracy than a dictatorship or a theocracy. Iraq seemed like a good target in that it is/was very secular compared to others, plus oil sure helps get a country back on it's feet (not like situation in Aghanistan. It's a good location to help whip up democratic revolutionaries in Iran (yep, they have them!)
-Get that Iraqi oil flowing again. Iraq needs an infrastructure upgrade, which means foreign investments. Iraq already owes Russia, Germany quite a bit, so those debts needed to be 'dumped' and new investments would be needed. Tough to do with Saddam in power.
-If things were successful, maybe gives GWB a chance to deal with Palestine/Israel situation from a position of power, ala "only Nixon could go to China"
-Last on the list eliminate any leftover WMD (if any) and stop any possible funding of terrorism.
There were probably five or six other reason, but these are what I think his motivations were. I don't claim these are right or are not right morally, or risk wise. This is just what I think drove this policy.

by **CodeRed68** » Mon Jun 28, 2004 11:21 pm

Saddam was a brutal torturer and murderer, responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths of his own countrymen, woman and children. Using chemical weapons to boot.

Both Clinton and Putin believed that Iraq possesed WMD.

France, Germany and Russia were making billions off of a Saddam controlled Iraq.

Saddam/Iraq violated 17 UN resolutions set after the first Gulf War.

The amount of American lives lost in Iraq is a fraction of what was lost in previous wars.

The popular opinion of the world is to hate America. America is top dog, superpower, front-runner, big Kahuna, bully. America has become all this with it's free enterprise and democratic government in the shortest time in history. For all these reasons, America is resented. Bottom line.

Removing Saddam was the right thing to do. Giving the Iraqi's a chance to live freely from under brutal dictatorship rule was the right thing to do.

Freedom has been paid for with the lives of brave men and woman time and again. Unfortunate but necessary.

My 2 cents.

by **PudriK** » Tue Jun 29, 2004 6:24 pm

Kingof Beers, I sometimes wonder if the reason that we aren't as concerned about Osama himself is that he is not so much a mastermind as a figure-head and financier. 9/11 was masterminded by Khalid Sheik Mohammed. From what I've gathered from several sources, al-Qaeda is not a centralized and heirarchical organization, more like a collective of disparate and like-minded organizations, such as Zarkawi's. So to take out Osama would be a psychological blow, but like Saddam, not really effective in eliminating the problem. So attracting these elements to one place makes a cynical sort of sense.

I was not a big fan of the Iraq war when it started, but it is pointless to say "history will judge." Hindsight is, as they say, 20/20, but we have to decide what is right now based on our limited information. For better or worse, this road has been chosen and we must stick it out. That's why I can't stand the anti-war protesters... ask them for a practical alternative and they can't give you one... just "we shouldn't be there" and "war is not the answer." Well, that may be, but what do we do now?

As for whether the war was the right thing to do, it was certainly a better choice than another decade of embargoes that only hurt the Iraqi people.

cavalierlwt captured the arguments very succintly.

What remains to be seen is if Kerry is elected will he have the fortitude to stick with "Bush's War," or will he turn it over to the UN, which couldn't resolve its way out of a paper bag.

Power transfer in Iraq

Who is online