ambehrendt
Registered Member
If you are going to quote me and respond - I wouldn't mind if you responded to things I actually said.... (i.e. where did I mention 9.11 as a basis for the invasion of iraq?)
What do you think of the war in Iraq?
- Thread starter S.A.M.
- Start date
If you are going to quote me and respond - I wouldn't mind if you responded to things I actually said.... (i.e. where did I mention 9.11 as a basis for the invasion of iraq?)
Let me clarify then. 9.11 was a good reason for some kind of military action. The invasion of Iraq happened after that, and unless they are connected in some way, it was a distraction, a waste of time and resources... unless Iraq was a direct threat to us, which was not the case. Bush didn't have to weigh wether there were WMD's in Iraq or not, the intelligence community was telling him that there weren't. He relied on ONE source, a person codenamed Curveball, and ignored everyone tellling him other than what he wanted to hear. The DAY afer 9.11, he was asking for intel to support the invasion of Iraq. People at that meeting said, "you mean Afghanistan, right?", "no, Iraq".
ambehrendt
Registered Member
Is our belief that the government (dictator) of iraq was being inhumane to the people of iraq any less good of a reason to go in and remove the regime?
Bells
Staff member
So why did you keep trading with him in the 80's and not attempt to stop him (in the 80's) during the peak of his 'inhumane' activity against the people of Iraq? Why did it take you over 20 years to act to his "being inhumane" way back then?
Please, using that as an excuse is an insult to the people you helped kill by giving Saddam the logistical support and some of the weapons he used to be "inhumane" to his people in the 80's. Had you really cared, you'd have stopped him in the 80's when there was a global outcry over his "inhumane" activities. Instead, what did you do? Oh yes that's right, you did nothing.
I think the war was stupid, even stupider considering the fact that project for a new American century and other supremists planned this war way before 911. I am not even sure they are after rebuilding Iraq because Donald Rumsfeld refused to let the UN into Afghanistan for rebuilding efforts, citing that the UN would get in the way of "critical" American operations in the region. To be honest I don't think the bush admin guys know what they are doing, better yet, they don't know how to carry on about something. I think Eisenhower said it best "Military-Industrial-complex". After all since when did toppling a civillian building (by civillians) warrant an all out invasion of a country? For a country that should be the most civilized and advanced, that was barbaric and unintelligent. They could have taken Saddam and his henchmen out without an out-and-out invasion, they could have also taken out the WMD sites similar to the way Isreal did to Iran. Only the Bush guys know what they are doing, personally I am tired of defending them.
PaladinGirl02
Registered Member
No, the war in Iraq was not justified.
It was not justified and it was not planned right.
Yes, in that Saddam's mistreatment of Kurds happened a decade ago, and we did nothing, waged the Gulf War and let him stay. As a result of our actions, perhaps 600,000 Iraqis have died. What number reason is this? Bush keeps changing why we are there.
There is a genocide happening in Darfur, waged by Islamic militants and supported by the government of Sudan, who's leader, Bashir has direct ties to Bin Laden. Yet we do nothing there.
Bush was inhumane to the victims of Katrina. China is inhumane to followers of non-official religions and political activists. Russia is inhumane to journalists and Chechens. North Korea is inhumane to it's citizens. You can't invade a soveriegn country unless they are a direct threat, or they attacked you.
"I could care less about Iraqis dying, but the cost, economically, politically, militarily and diplomatically is too much"
Don't be surprised next time people are blown up by a terrosist attack in retaliation. All I am saying is that Iraqis are people too. Peace is more imporant than what you are worring about. Without peace you can't enjoy enything
Don't be surprised next time people are blown up by a terrosist attack in retaliation. All I am saying is that Iraqis are people too. Peace is more imporant than what you are worring about. Without peace you can't enjoy enything
ambehrendt
Registered Member
Ironically I wasn't born so it was beyond me to do anything - if you were speaking in the more general sense, inactivity in the past in no way justifies inactivity now. By your logic if you screw up on an exam you should then screw up on the rest of your exams to maintain the trend...
ambehrendt
Registered Member
why not?
What does this mean? Which people? What do they know more? Why is this supposedly great amount of information not available so everybody can know?
It's hypocritial and a dangerous precedent. Isn't that what Saddam did to Kuwait?
Retaliatory terrorist attacks would be an economic, political, military and diplomatic cost to our war.
Bells
Staff member
So by your logic you're actually in the wrong place. If inactivity in the past does not justify inactivity in the present, then as Spider pointed out earlier, you should be in Darfur for example. After all, you were inactive for the genocide in Rwanda, you should not be doing the same now, should you?
But lets go back to Iraq. What exactly would you have been inactive against "now"? Saddam posed no threat to you. He no longer possessed WMD's.
As of yet, no one has been able to say exactly why attacking Iraq is somehow justified. Excuses about his posing a threat has been denounced by even the US Government since no WMD's have been found and what the world was saying in regards to his not being a threat came to light before, during and presently in this war. So that excuse is out of the window. His connection to Al Qaeda came next. The world scoffed as it was well known how much Saddam and Bin Laden hated each other.. and again the world was right.. no connection has ever been found. And then we come to his 'inhumane' treatment of his own people. Yes. Considering the worst of it was past more than 20 years ago and considering what the US has been found to doing in the jails in Iraq of late, that excuse means nothing at all.
So how exactly is attacking Iraq somehow justified? Please. Provide the answer that even the US Government and her allies have been unable to answer.
Justified to or for whom??? ...everyone on Earth?
Bells, the war was justified by the US congress in an almost unanimous vote, and you can't get much better than that! So, yes, the war was justified by the people of the USA.
Was it justified for Sadman Hussy? Probably not!
Anyone can "justify" anything for themselves ...getting the entire population of the world to agree is another story altogether.
Baron Max
Baron Max said:
What is the ethical implication of the fact that the justification was false? The idea that a president would submit such false information to Congress, or the UN for that matter, was unthinkable before Bush. Certainly, people accused such things, but those accusations ... well, I survived the Reagan years, and one lesson people tried to teach me was that, "You may not like the leaders, but these are honorable men, and it's not right to accuse them of such things just because you don't like them."
No. Such cynicism as to receive the president's case for war and say, "No, he's lying through his teeth," has generally been taboo in American politics. Now, thanks to the Bush administration, that taboo is breaking. It's a terrible price to pay, but no future president should ever get the cake-walk that Bush got. And no future president should ever get the trust that Bush got.
Ethically, that the war was justified by insupportable theses and misinformation does not speak highly of the war.
Thus the trust of the congress was violated. Congress members do not operate their own intelligence agencies. They were operating on false information supplied by Bush's inner circle, and that's unforgivable.