Our President's Precedent

[jadote]

As I understand it, the Us's war on Iraq was waged for three reasons:

1. Saddam Hussein is/was a tyrant, guilty of atrocities.

 

2. Iraq has/had WMD.

 

3. There is/was a link between Iraq and Al-Qaida.

 

Obviously no sane person could argue against reason #1, but seeing as no WMD (as of yet) have been found and even more importantly no Iraq-Al Qaida link has been discovered, President Bush has set a dangerous standard for the US as the world's police force.

 

The US is now responsible for invading any country found to have:

 

1. A tyrant, guilty of atrocities.

 

2. WMD.

 

Using these guidelines, it is the US's duty to invade North Korea. Not only do they have a maniacal tyrant (probably worse than Hussein), they also have a much more advanced nuclear program.

 

So, one might ask, why isn't the US invading North Korea? The answer: North Korea doesn't have oilfields. The US, under this current administration, won't fight a war unless there's money to be made or an economic interest to be saved.

[fafalone]

Or the fact North Korea has a standing army of 1 million soldiers who will fight to the last man, missiles that would wipe out the 30,000 US troops in the DMZ, and would also level Seoul if we started massing troops and planes for war, not to mention the very real potential of ICBMs capable of reaching California.

Dealing with a situation like that is extremely difficult and will take time.

 

Take your anti-americanism elsewhere, your primary interest clearly isn't science.

[Hitman47]

Why haven't heads rolled at the CIA? Well a number of them have spoken out about how Cheney would encourage the editing of intelligence to fit his regimes needs. I actually wouldn't be surprised if the 'real' intelliegence all along pointed out that Iraq was not a threat, hints of which have been leaked out, and that more have not spoken out for fear of falling foul of this administration who are not scared to use bullying tatics against those who have an alternative viewpoint.

9/11 was the point that changed the US worldview in the mainstream, but this bunch of cowboys had their minds set on getting into Iraq a long time ago. 9/11 was the implicit pretext, WMD were the explicit reason given, and a foothold in the middle east was the driving force.

If 9/11 had not of happened, Iraq would have been invaded anyway. Like Wolfowitz said, WMD issue were just a bureaucratic decision anyway. Influence and control in the middle east are the primary motivation.

 

 

 

 

Also to note is how the media cuts down on hopeful democratic candidate Howard Dean:

 

Dean's only downfall was that he actually spoke the truth. He says the United States is no safer today now that Saddam is in prison and the media rips him a new one. Dean says Bush may have known about 9-11 before hand and the media rips him a new one. Dean says he believes we can't pronounce bin Laden guilty until a FAIR trial and the media rips him a new one for it. On the other hand you've got President Bush that LIES about going to war with Iraq, kills over 500 US troops and massacres 10,000+ Iraqis and they don't say a word. You've got President Bush whoring out the White House to corporations - giving them tax-cuts, while taking money away from the poor and they don't say a word.

 

The moral of the story is clear; NEVER tell the truth - always buff your image up or the media and voters will eat ya' alive. They respect liars. They respect Bush for lying about the war in Iraq; they respected Clinton for lying about a BJ; they respected Reagan for lying about every DAMN thing; they respected Nixon about lying over Watergate. Now they'll respect a liar like John Kerry and John Edwards.

 

Isn't America great? :bs:

[fafalone]

...so why is it that the United Nations passed a resolution demanding Iraq comply with handing over information about WMDs they UNDENIABLY were in possession of, because the US and Britain SOLD THEM TO IRAQ, THEY PREVIOUSLY USED THEM, and PROVIDED NO EVIDENCE OF WHAT HAPPENED TO THEM.

 

So anything Howard Dean says is the truth? Democrats are just as biased as Republicans, only for the opposite view.

[Hitman47]

fafalone said in post # :

Or the fact North Korea has a standing army of 1 million soldiers who will fight to the last man, missiles that would wipe out the 30,000 US troops in the DMZ, and would also level Seoul if we started massing troops and planes for war, not to mention the very real potential of ICBMs capable of reaching California.

Dealing with a situation like that is extremely difficult and will take time.

 

 

Thats true, the only reason why they wouldn't go invade Korea like some wild cowboys is because of the potential threat it can have on U.S troops.

 

Taking out Iraq, serves as a stronghold to develop the oil business circulating.

 

Remember that the Bush family has a strong relationship with the Osama fortunes on Oil deals, so the Middle East is the reason why its being targeted.

 

 

Look at what Bush has done, he has effectively set out an invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq, and guess what country has it borders on those two countries???

 

 

Other than Iran

 

Oh looky, Bush is getting good at geography , now he can invade Iran when his buddies in Florida help him win the election again this coming fall.

 

But what about Saudi Arabia?? After all, the majority of the terrorists on 9/11 were Saudis, but why don't we see Saudi Arabia targeted???

 

Oh yea the strong friendly oil business the Bush family has with them Wahabbists

[fafalone]

Why didn't we just take Iraq's oil in the Gulf War?

 

I can't imagine what kind of education brings up such blatant evasions of common sense and factual evidence.

 

If you're against our attack on Al-Qaeda and the Taliban, I suggest ending this conversation immediately.

[Hitman47]

fafalone said in post # :

...so why is it that the United Nations passed a resolution demanding Iraq comply with handing over information about WMDs they UNDENIABLY were in possession of, because the US and Britain SOLD THEM TO IRAQ, THEY PREVIOUSLY USED THEM, and PROVIDED NO EVIDENCE OF WHAT HAPPENED TO THEM.

 

So anything Howard Dean says is the truth? Democrats are just as biased as Republicans, only for the opposite view.

 

 

Define a WMD?

 

 

------------------------------

 

Why didn't we just take Iraq's oil in the Gulf War?

 

 

Because the U.S were drivining Iraqi Forces out of Kuwait.

 

Plus, they had a government so thankful for that : Kuwait

 

So U.S had all the oil they needed for 13 years

 

 

 

[Hitman47]

Here is an excerpt of Powell from May 2001 :|

 

 

 

Furthermore, on 15 May 2001, Powell testified before the Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related Programs Subcommittee of the Senate Appropriations Committee. Several kind readers with access to Lexis-Nexis sent me the full transcript of the questions-and-answers portion of Powell's testimony. Here's the relevant extract:

 

Senator Bennett: Mr. Secretary, the U.N. sanctions on Iraq expire the beginning of June. We've had bombs dropped, we've had threats made, we've had all kinds of activity vis-a-vis Iraq in the previous administration. Now we're coming to the end. What's our level of concern about the progress of Saddam Hussein's chemical and biological weapons programs?

 

Secretary Powell: The sanctions, as they are called, have succeeded over the last 10 years, not in deterring him from moving in that direction, but from actually being able to move in that direction. The Iraqi regime militarily remains fairly weak. It doesn't have the capacity it had 10 or 12 years ago. It has been contained. And even though we have no doubt in our mind that the Iraqi regime is pursuing programs to develop weapons of mass destruction -- chemical, biological and nuclear -- I think the best intelligence estimates suggest that they have not been terribly successful. There's no question that they have some stockpiles of some of these sorts of weapons still under their control, but they have not been able to break out, they have not been able to come out with the capacity to deliver these kinds of systems or to actually have these kinds of systems that is much beyond where they were 10 years ago.

 

So containment, using this arms control sanctions regime, I think has been reasonably successful. We have not been able to get the inspectors back in, though, to verify that, and we have not been able to get the inspectors in to pull up anything that might be left there. So we have to continue to view this regime with the greatest suspicion, attribute to them the most negative motives, which is quite well-deserved with this particular regime, and roll the sanctions over, and roll them over in a way where the arms control sanctions really go after their intended targets -- weapons of mass destruction -- and not go after civilian goods or civilian commodities that we really shouldn't be going after, just let that go to the Iraqi people. That wasn't the purpose of the oil-for-food program. And by reconfiguring them in that way, I think we can gain support for this regime once again.

 

 

 

 

 

----------------------------------------------

 

So look:

 

In February 2003, Powell said: "We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction, is determined to make more."

 

but before:

 

But two years earlier, Powell said just the opposite. The occasion was a press conference on 24 February 2001 during Powell's visit to Cairo, Egypt. Answering a question about the US-led sanctions against Iraq, the Secretary of State said:

 

He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq...

[Hitman47]

and so how can this administration lie, if Bush planned the war beforehand?????

 

 

15 September 2002: A SECRET blueprint for US global domination reveals that President Bush and his cabinet were planning a premeditated attack on Iraq to secure 'regime change' even before he took power in January 2001.

 

The blueprint, uncovered by the Sunday Herald, for the creation of a 'global Pax Americana' was drawn up for Dick Cheney (now vice- president), Donald Rumsfeld (defence secretary), Paul Wolfowitz (Rumsfeld's deputy), George W Bush's younger brother Jeb and Lewis Libby (Cheney's chief of staff). The document, entitled Rebuilding America's Defences: Strategies, Forces And Resources For A New Century, was written in September 2000 by the neo-conservative think-tank Project for the New American Century (PNAC).

 

The plan shows Bush's cabinet intended to take military control of the Gulf region whether or not Saddam Hussein was in power. It says: 'The United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.'

 

The PNAC document supports a 'blueprint for maintaining global US pre-eminence, precluding the rise of a great power rival, and shaping the international security order in line with American principles and interests'.

 

This 'American grand strategy' must be advanced for 'as far into the future as possible', the report says. It also calls for the US to 'fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theatre wars' as a 'core mission'.

 

The report describes American armed forces abroad as 'the cavalry on the new American frontier'. The PNAC blueprint supports an earlier document written by Wolfowitz and Libby that said the US must 'discourage advanced industrial nations from challenging our leadership or even aspiring to a larger regional or global role'.

 

The PNAC report also:

 

l refers to key allies such as the UK as 'the most effective and efficient means of exercising American global leadership';

 

l describes peace-keeping missions as 'demanding American political leadership rather than that of the United Nations';

 

l reveals worries in the administration that Europe could rival the USA;

 

l says 'even should Saddam pass from the scene' bases in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait will remain permanently -- despite domestic opposition in the Gulf regimes to the stationing of US troops -- as 'Iran may well prove as large a threat to US interests as Iraq has';

 

l spotlights China for 'regime change' saying 'it is time to increase the presence of American forces in southeast Asia'. This, it says, may lead to 'American and allied power providing the spur to the process of democratisation in China';

 

l calls for the creation of 'US Space Forces', to dominate space, and the total control of cyberspace to prevent 'enemies' using the internet against the US;

 

l hints that, despite threatening war against Iraq for developing weapons of mass destruction, the US may consider developing biological weapons -- which the nation has banned -- in decades to come. It says: 'New methods of attack -- electronic, 'non-lethal', biological -- will be more widely available ... combat likely will take place in new dimensions, in space, cyberspace, and perhaps the world of microbes ... advanced forms of biological warfare that can 'target' specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool';

 

l and pinpoints North Korea, Libya, Syria and Iran as dangerous regimes and says their existence justifies the creation of a 'world-wide command-and-control system'.

 

Tam Dalyell, the Labour MP, father of the House of Commons and one of the leading rebel voices against war with Iraq, said: 'This is garbage from right-wing think-tanks stuffed with chicken-hawks -- men who have never seen the horror of war but are in love with the idea of war. Men like Cheney, who were draft-dodgers in the Vietnam war.

 

'This is a blueprint for US world domination -- a new world order of their making. These are the thought processes of fantasist Americans who want to control the world. I am appalled that a British Labour Prime Minister should have got into bed with a crew which has this moral standing.'

[Hitman47]

I meant the Administration lied, because they planned it beforehand.

[jadote]

fafalone said in post #6 :

Why didn't we just take Iraq's oil in the Gulf War?

 

I can't imagine what kind of education brings up such blatant evasions of common sense and factual evidence.

 

If you're against our attack on Al-Qaeda and the Taliban, I suggest ending this conversation immediately.

 

Nobody here has said they were against the attack on Afghanistan, we're just suspicious of our government. Especially when our two main objectives for going to war were finding WMD and Osama Bin-Laden, and neither of those things have been accomplished. Maybe you could use 'factual evidence' and 'common sense' to tell us why the people suffering under Hussein and the Taliban are liberated while people in Africa continue starving and suffering under warlords? Also, can you tell us why Saudi Arabia's regime remains when their rulers are just as bad as Saddam was?

[fafalone]

We've intervened in Africa several times. Iraq and Afghanistan were based on a THREAT TO US.

 

You'd throw a fit if we started intervening in every country whose people needed it.

[Hitman47]

Iraq was no threat TO US

 

:lame: :zzz:

[ignrnceprevails]

"He's (saddam) a threat to america and he's a threat to our friends. He's even more of a threat now that we've learned that he's anxious to have, once again, to develop a nuclear weapon. He's got connections with al Qaeda." (george bush, denver, Colorado, oct. 2002)

 

he actually said that! with no concrete evidence, nothing! the only reason bush ever said that was to create fear in all of us Americans..and guess what, fear leads to cooperation, to patriotism! my belief is that the only reason the bush administration made a statement like this (and hes said it numerous times) is to ensure that "we the people" have his back in this unnecessary war. i know im just stating the obvious, but its gotta tick you off that he would make these outrageous allegations. rumsfeld has done it too! so tell me, whats worse, lying about "having sexual relations wtih that woman" or claiming that iraq is a serious threat to us?

[Sayonara]

Hitman47 said in post # :

Because the U.S were drivining Iraqi Forces out of Kuwait.

Plus, they had a government so thankful for that : Kuwait

So U.S had all the oil they needed for 13 years

It was because the Iraqis set them on fire to make them impossible to control.

[jadote]

fafalone said in post #12 :

Iraq and Afghanistan were based on a THREAT TO US.

 

 

 

Fafalone, explain to me how Iraq was more of a threat to us than North Korea? Especially in retrospect when we have found no link between Iraq and Al-Qaida and no WMD?

[fafalone]

They were not more of a threat to us than North Korea, please read the explanation of why we have not intervened there.

[jadote]

fafalone said in post #17 :

They were not more of a threat to us than North Korea, please read the explanation of why we have not intervened there.

 

 

So how exactly were they a threat?

 

If North Korea and Iraq were of equal threat, and it was of vital importance to wage a preemptive war, why has the regime in North Korea allowed to remain? You basically said we put off stopping North Korea because it is too difficult. Does that mean we protect ourselves from threats, as long as its not too dangerous? I think it means that Bush didnt want thousands (instead of 500) of dead Americans being sent home, and ruining his chances of a second term. Then again, he may just be playing it smart, and he may be planning to invade North Korea in his second term. But if that's true, he's let the US be threatened for quite a long time for his own political agenda.

[Hitman47]

nah this is about installing a puppet government in Iraq, and then be able to set up a strategic plan to invade Syria and Iran.

 

 

While Saudi Arabia are still best friends to the U.S.A

 

 

:bs:

[atinymonkey]

As a balance to at least one the misinformed facts on this thread, North Korea's latest 'evil' plan:-

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/3382595.stm

[YT2095]

WMD is a misnomer anyway, there is only one WMD and thats a Nuke, the rest are merely Area Denial weapons.

 

the taliban had no time for saddam at all, the only reason saddam looked into islam was to further his power base and fear tactics, he was entire NON religous up to that point, AFTERWARDS however, he saw it`s potential and TV programs were flooded with pics of him praying in mosques, he even added "Alah Akhbar" to the Iraqi flag. and claims to be a descendant of mohamed!

 

no, there were NO taliban/saddam links either

 

now, well that`s a different ball game!

[jadote]

atinymonkey said in post #20 :

As a balance to at least one the misinformed facts on this thread, North Korea's latest 'evil' plan:-

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/3382595.stm

 

 

Atinymonkey, I don't know exactly what you were getting at in your post. If you believe that article is anything else but a facade for the rest of the world to be fooled by, then you are the one who is misinformed. Hopefully reading these articles will change your mind.

 

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/07/19/1026898919587.html

 

http://web.amnesty.org/pages/prk-170104-action-eng

 

 

 

http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGASA240032004?open&of=ENG-PRK

[fafalone]

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/01/26/sprj.nirq.bush.qaeda/index.html

 

High-ranking Al-Qaeda operative captured IN IRAQ. I can't wait for the left-wing extremist responses on this one.

[jadote]

Maybe if you'd read the article you would see he was captured 'only recently' inside Iraq. That doesn't provide an Iraq-Al Qaida link pre-9/11.

[fafalone]

Ah, I knew you'd come up with a cop-out.

 

3. There is/was a link between Iraq and Al-Qaida.

.

 

Whoops.