When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
WMD were found? Iraq was dangerous? Hmmmm. Maybe real estate developers should take a lesson from the oil people and 'discover' WMDs on Cuba. There has to an old Russian missile or two somewhere in the jungles.
So just because we haven't found any WMD YET, Iraq wasn't dangerous? Even if in the end it turns out that the intel was faulty, does that mean Iraq wasn't dangerous? Is this what your are basing you threat analyisis on?
There were other reasons Iraq had to get a new goverment, WMD was only one. If you think for one minute that Iraq wasn't doing everything it could to hurt the US and US interest, then you've been sleeping for the last 10 years.
It seems like you think the President just woke up one day and decided to invade a country, just for the heck of it. If you don't like the President, then that's your right, show it when you vote. But don't make things up or twist words or ignore facts just to justify your point of view.
Last edited by AegisSailor; Sep 11, 2003 at 03:49 PM.
I hate to say it but it seems like the top priorities for the US to intervene militarilly are political and economical. Cuba doesn't really offer any advantages in these areas. The two biggest conflicts in the last two decades were Dessert Storm and Dessert Freedom. Both in the oil rich middle east. If you read the paper, there is pain and suffering all over the world. Lots of poor, oppressed people that would benefit from a helping hand, but they have nothing to offer.
I won't deny that oil plays an important part in national security. The middle east holds the majority of the worlds oil supply, and without a doubt controls the market. We can't let that supply be endangered.
What have I twisted? I was told Iraq had the capability to attack us with WMDs with 45-minutes notice, was trying to buy nuclear capability and poised an immediate threat to my security. After they didn't launch one plane, use any chemical warfare, and we rolled right in, I'll have to admit I was a little confused about the possible overstatement of danger. Those are facts. Now it just looks like a repeat of Viet Nam rhetoric, threat of communism with new buzzwords and I'm hearing the same government phases of be patient, this could take a long time. Bin Laden attacked us, not Iraq.
I'm buying the Wolfowitz Doctrine gone bad because Iraq didn't welcome our presence and that tied up our available ground forces and 1/3 of the reserves. That plan required that we de-stabilze three mid-east countries, intimidate Saudi Arabia and loosen the grip on mid-east oil production.
The WMD threat was based on solid intel sources. Only time will tell if those sources were right. Documents recovered from palaces show that Iraq was trying to procure nuclear material, and nuclear procssessing equipment was found burried under some scientists ROSE GARDEN. If this stuff exists, it's either burried is some remote location, or has already been transfred to a terrorist group or hostile nation. Let's hope this is not the case.
I have a feeling that if we never kicked Huesien out and he eventually did manage to trasfer WMD to terrorsts, those so opposed to this war would be the first to accuse the goverment of not doing it's duty to protect us.
You can't have it both ways. I for one, believe in the theory that the best defense is a good offense. We reason to believe that a threat existed, and we took action.
Why didn't we put any emphasis on removing Saddam Hussien during the first Gulf war? Did we think he was going to warm up to our way of thinking? We already had our forces there and dozens of countries sharing the expenses.
goerge, Where are you getting 45 min notice for the iraqs to attack the USA?????
Until clinton gave the tecnology to china they did not have the capabilaties.And they are 20 years ahead of iraq and 2o years behind us.
And iraq could only ever hit israel and that was just loobing a scud at them..
And you say repeat of Viet Nam rhetoric ???We have been there less than a year how long where we in NAM.??10+ years.
The war was run from the whitehouse for NAM. Iraq is run by the top milatary minds in the U.S.???So that is not the same.
Plus before we even started Bush said this war will cost big $$ and take many years...
I think you are being premature whith your coments..If after 5 or 6 years of no foward progress like Nam, then I will be standing next to you yelling
And we know they tryed to buy nukes from anybody that would sell them !!And france was just waiting to give them to iraq.
As they did back in the 70s.
Durring the first gulf war, it would not have been wise to advance into Bagdad. It would have destroyed the coalition that was in place at the time. The stated mission of the coalition was to free Kuwait, and that was accomplished.
There are many pros and cons to not taking out Saddam then. I think General Swartsckoff (no hope of spelling that name) did a great job of explaining it in his autobiography.
Originally posted by AegisSailor Durring the first gulf war, it would not have been wise to advance into Bagdad. It would have destroyed the coalition that was in place at the time. The stated mission of the coalition was to free Kuwait, and that was accomplished.
There are many pros and cons to not taking out Saddam then. I think General Swartsckoff (no hope of spelling that name) did a great job of explaining it in his autobiography.
Hindsight is always 20/20. But in reality this conflict with Iraq is at least 12 years old. It has spanned two republican and one democratic administration. For the last 12 years, you couldn't pick up a newspaper without reading a story about Iraq.
AegisSailor, Not attack our country, Iraq was third tier and never had that capability. 45-minutes to deploy WMD against attackers of the country of Iraq was part of the spin.