| Author |
Message |
    
3ringale
Citizen
Username: Threeringale
Post Number: 379
Registered: 1-2006
| | Posted on Friday, September 1, 2006 - 11:15 am: | 
|
Strawberry said:
Anyone who uses chemical weapons has no place in this world, period. If you don't believe me ask the Kurds.
The Constitution does not authorize the President to decide who does or does not have a place in this world. As for the Kurds, they are not American citizens and whatever has befallen them does not give them any claim on American blood and treasure. If you are referring to Halabja in 1988, Saddam's culpability is less than certain. In the run-up to the war, Stephen C. Pelletiere wrote an interesting op-ed in the NY Times on Jan. 31, 2003.
He says:
This much about the gassing at Halabja we undoubtedly know: it came about in the course of a battle between Iraqis and Iranians. Iraq used chemical weapons to try to kill Iranians who had seized the town, which is in northern Iraq not far from the Iranian border. The Kurdish civilians who died had the misfortune to be caught up in that exchange. But they were not Iraq's main target.
And the story gets murkier: immediately after the battle the United States Defense Intelligence Agency investigated and produced a classified report, which it circulated within the intelligence community on a need-to-know basis. That study asserted that it was Iranian gas that killed the Kurds, not Iraqi gas.
The agency did find that each side used gas against the other in the battle around Halabja. The condition of the dead Kurds' bodies, however, indicated they had been killed with a blood agent - that is, a cyanide-based gas - which Iran was known to use. The Iraqis, who are thought to have used mustard gas in the battle, are not known to have possessed blood agents at the time.
The whole piece is conveniently available here without having to log in to the Time's archives:
http://www.sovereignty.org.uk/siteinfo/newsround/iraq2.html
Pelletiere obviously knows much more about this than I do, but I feel safe in saying that the the question of why we invaded Iraq remains on the table.
Cheers
|
S.L.K. 2.0
Citizen
Username: Scrotisloknows
Post Number: 1994
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Friday, September 1, 2006 - 11:43 am: |
|
RL,
I am at work, give me some time to sift through it and I will get back to you...
-SLK |
Strawberry
Supporter
Username: Strawberry
Post Number: 7808
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Friday, September 1, 2006 - 1:30 pm: |
|
"The Constitution does not authorize the President to decide who does or does not have a place in this world."
Congress authorized the decision to attack Iraq. |
Strawberry
Supporter
Username: Strawberry
Post Number: 7809
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Friday, September 1, 2006 - 1:33 pm: |
|
By the way check out Nohero's "I voted for the war before I voted against it" excuse. Sorry Charlie, The Dems and the GOP were behind the decision to go to war. The only difference being that the GOP stands behind the decision and the dems want you to believe they had nothing to do with it..
B.S excuses like that won't work in November for the left and it certainly won't work in 08. |
tom
Citizen
Username: Tom
Post Number: 5710
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, September 1, 2006 - 1:40 pm: |
|
2004's tired slogans aren't working anymore. The GOP's control of Congress is in danger, and it's because they stubbornly stand behind the decision. Dems are tough enough to change their position to meet the new demands of reality. |
S.L.K. 2.0
Citizen
Username: Scrotisloknows
Post Number: 1997
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Friday, September 1, 2006 - 1:47 pm: |
|
"The GOP's control of Congress is in danger, and it's because they stubbornly stand behind the decision. Dems are tough enough to change their position to meet the new demands of reality."
Holy cow, talk about a totally unrealistic interpretation of events!
-SLK |
Robert Livingston
Citizen
Username: Rob_livingston
Post Number: 2067
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Friday, September 1, 2006 - 1:52 pm: |
|
How is that unrealistic? |
Nohero
Supporter
Username: Nohero
Post Number: 5792
Registered: 10-1999
| | Posted on Friday, September 1, 2006 - 2:00 pm: |
|
Quote:By the way check out Nohero's "I voted for the war before I voted against it" excuse. Sorry Charlie, The Dems and the GOP were behind the decision to go to war.
Yes, too many voted to give Bush the authority, which he abused. That was a big mistake on their part.
But it's not B.S. to say that Bush abused that authority, told the inspectors to get out of Iraq, and launched an invasion without any further authorization. As a bonus, he did so while claiming that it was part of responding to the September 11 attacks.
Some of the Senators and Representatives have admitted that their vote was a mistake. Maybe more should do so. |
Strawberry
Supporter
Username: Strawberry
Post Number: 7810
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Friday, September 1, 2006 - 2:39 pm: |
|
"Yes, too many voted to give Bush the authority, which he abused. That was a big mistake on their part."
What a bunch of nonsense. He did what Congress wanted him to do, remove Saddam and get to the bottom of the WMD program that George Tenet said was operational. There was no abuse, no illegal behaivor, nothing of the sort. To this very second, Congress is still making it clear they want the U.S to continue the mission of rebuilding Iraq..
libs.
|
Nohero
Supporter
Username: Nohero
Post Number: 5793
Registered: 10-1999
| | Posted on Friday, September 1, 2006 - 2:47 pm: |
|
If he really wanted to get to the bottom of the WMD program, he could have let the inspectors finish their work.
And maybe blowing up the whole country was not the best way to do "regime change" in Iraq.
Neocons. Sheesh. |
ae35unit
Citizen
Username: Ae35unit
Post Number: 197
Registered: 2-2006
| | Posted on Friday, September 1, 2006 - 3:05 pm: |
|
Strawberry, do you mean the rubber stamp Republican congress?
They're going to have to answer to the American people in November, their not going to like that, the rubber stamp Republicans, I mean. Remember, only a certain group of the right wing fringe and the unbalanced support the president now. The Republican's will have to rally the disturbed or they're in big trouble in November.
|
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 5844
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 1, 2006 - 3:28 pm: |
|
Actually, the rubber stamp here has been Bush, especially when you talk about conservative ire. Conservatives have been praying for Bush to follow through on just one veto threat and he hasn't done so. Republicans have joined democrats in runaway spending, and Bush has caved and signed just about every bill that's crossed his desk. |
tom
Citizen
Username: Tom
Post Number: 5711
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, September 1, 2006 - 3:35 pm: |
|
Straw seems to be saying that it was Congress that wanted to invade Iraq and poor George had to be dragged kicking and screaming. What a hoot, you guys are so desperate I can smell the sweat through my cable modem. |
ae35unit
Citizen
Username: Ae35unit
Post Number: 198
Registered: 2-2006
| | Posted on Friday, September 1, 2006 - 3:37 pm: |
|
"Republicans have joined democrats in runaway spending"
Name some recent runaway spending that was done by the Democrats. Hmm?
|
3ringale
Citizen
Username: Threeringale
Post Number: 380
Registered: 1-2006
| | Posted on Friday, September 1, 2006 - 6:35 pm: |
|
OK, I should have said: The Constitution does not authorize the President or Congress to decide who does or does not have a place in this world.
But I still want to know why we invaded Iraq.
Cheers |
Strawberry
Supporter
Username: Strawberry
Post Number: 7811
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Friday, September 1, 2006 - 7:14 pm: |
|
"But I still want to know why we invaded Iraq."
and again I will answer your question.
"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003 | Source
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002 | Source
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998 | Source
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998 | Source
"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998 | Source
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998 | Source
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton.
- (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998 | Source
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998 | Source
"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999 | Source
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002 | Source
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 | Source
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 | Source
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002 | Source
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002 | Source
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002 | Source
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002 | Source
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002 | Source
|
Strawberry
Supporter
Username: Strawberry
Post Number: 7812
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Friday, September 1, 2006 - 7:56 pm: |
|
"If he really wanted to get to the bottom of the WMD program, he could have let the inspectors finish their work."
Nohero, your "go UN, you're the best" cheer carried litte weight then and it certainly carries little weight today. Especially on a day where Kofi Annan announces Syria has pledged to secure the Israel-Lebanese border..
SYRIA????!!!!
Sorry Nohero, anyone who thinks the UN was in any position to be trusted regarding Iraq then probably believes Syria can be trusted today.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060901/ts_afp/mideastconflict_060901165127
|
tom
Citizen
Username: Tom
Post Number: 5713
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, September 1, 2006 - 9:08 pm: |
|
stupid comparison. The UN weapons inspectors were approved by us and perfectly legitimate. And they were right.
Is this the new Republican talking point: The Democrats made us do it? It's good for a laugh, I guess. And the New Deal was Hoover's idea. |
joel dranove
Citizen
Username: Jdranove
Post Number: 998
Registered: 1-2006
| | Posted on Friday, September 1, 2006 - 9:09 pm: |
|
Strawberry creamed them.
jd |
S.L.K. 2.0
Citizen
Username: Scrotisloknows
Post Number: 2003
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Friday, September 1, 2006 - 9:16 pm: |
|
Straw-
Nohero and the other usual suspects are just in pure denial of the Oil for Food Scandal....
3 ringale said:
"OK, I should have said: The Constitution does not authorize the President or Congress to decide who does or does not have a place in this world."
UNLESS our any other country's national security is at sake, which in such a case, they sure as hell do make such a decision...
oh boy I can here the utter predictabiliy coming. Put your cupped hand to your ear, can you hear it?
"how was Iraq a threat to our or any other countries national security?"
I must say the lefties sure kill me sometimes, they spare the criticism for an institution that fails time and time again to do the job it was created to do and resolve world issues (the UN) but have all the criticism for someone who said enough is enough and tried to do something about it (Bush).
Ufh, that hurt, didn't it?
-SLK
|
tom
Citizen
Username: Tom
Post Number: 5714
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, September 1, 2006 - 9:18 pm: |
|
So the Dems made Bush lose 3000 American servicement because of the oil for food scandal?
Grant for a minute that we know why we thought Iraq was a threat. Now tell us why it was a threat. |
joel dranove
Citizen
Username: Jdranove
Post Number: 1000
Registered: 1-2006
| | Posted on Friday, September 1, 2006 - 9:33 pm: |
|
read 7:14 pm post.
|
anon
Supporter
Username: Anon
Post Number: 3027
Registered: 6-2002
| | Posted on Friday, September 1, 2006 - 9:43 pm: |
|
Why would anyone cite statements by liberal Democrats as a way of replying to poster 3ringale, who is just about the most extreme rightist on MOL? |
tom
Citizen
Username: Tom
Post Number: 5715
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, September 1, 2006 - 9:50 pm: |
|
I read the 7:14 post, and they were all shown to be wrong. So what was the threat?
(Hint: "there was none after all" is a possible answer) |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 5845
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 1, 2006 - 10:22 pm: |
|
tom....would it be accurate to take the logic of your argument against Iraq being a threat and classify Iraq as benign? A benign country posing no threat to the US, or Israel, or Saudi Arabia, or Kuwait, etc.
Or maybe put them in the Clinton category of "nations of concern," a nation that we fly over regularly that shoots at us and we shoot at them in sort of benign way, maybe occasionally launching a series of Tomahawk missles at because they pose no threat. |
notehead
Supporter
Username: Notehead
Post Number: 3794
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, September 1, 2006 - 10:27 pm: |
|
"Nohero and the other usual suspects are just in pure denial of the Oil for Food Scandal...."
It was the biggest scam, monetarily speaking, EVER perpetrated. I'm sure wondering where you get the idea that anyone has denied it. Do, please, point that out. Normally a person would have to be composed of spandex to make a stretch like that. |
3ringale
Citizen
Username: Threeringale
Post Number: 382
Registered: 1-2006
| | Posted on Saturday, September 2, 2006 - 10:10 am: |
|
anon said:
Why would anyone cite statements by liberal Democrats as a way of replying to poster 3ringale, who is just about the most extreme rightist on MOL?
Bingo! (I thought about changing my screen name to TMEROMOL, but it just doesn't flow). Kerry and Berger have no more credibility than say, McCain and Rice. But that's not the question.
The question was how did Iraq pose a security threat to America? I did not feel threatened by a country 10,000 miles away with a military budget of about .2% of our military budget. (I pulled that number out of the air, but I'll bet its in the ballpark). I'm not a pacifist, but if American soldiers are going to fight and die, it should be for a very good reason, not some ginned-up baloney about mushroom clouds and smoking guns. Congress should also declare war if its that serious.
In my opinion, the number of times America has sent troops overseas with good reason is very small, and our invasion of Iraq is not one of them.
Cheers
|
T-Bone
Supporter
Username: Vandalay
Post Number: 1788
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, September 2, 2006 - 10:21 am: |
|
3Ring, Afghanistan's military budget was alot less than Iraq's , but a bunch of guys pretty cozy with their government planned the WTC attack in the late 1990's . The threat was from Saddam supplying Al Qeada with WMD's not from a conventional attack. That was the rationale pre war and it was debated and voted on. |
tom
Citizen
Username: Tom
Post Number: 5719
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, September 2, 2006 - 10:45 am: |
|
Quote:The threat was from Saddam supplying Al Qeada with WMD's not from a conventional attack.
There's a fairly extensive list of countries that could supply al qaeda with WMDs, including but not limited to North Korea, Chila, Russia, and a host of former Soviet republics. Are we going to war with all of them? Or just the ones that give Bush a woodie?
We should have concentrated on al qaeda. |
sbenois
Supporter
Username: Sbenois
Post Number: 15680
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, September 2, 2006 - 11:03 am: |
|
We should have just sent some State Troopers over to Afghanistan to find and arrest Bin Laden. After all, it was a law enforcement issue. If a 4 wheel drive squad car wasn't available they could have probably walked through the mountains. No big deal.
As far as Iraq was concerned, I'm surprised that we didn't just ask Saddam to promise that he didn't have WMD. I don't know about anyone else but his word would have been okay with me.
Both situations could have been handled with 4 people, tops. In fact, the Saddam negotiation could have been handled via Webex.
Even now, I can't believe that such a big deal is being made about Iran. We should simply send over a couple of Eagle Scouts and ask the Iranian President to promise that he'll only use nuclear technology for powering his country. If the scouts get him to swear that he's telling the truth, we can just move on.
No problem. |
T-Bone
Supporter
Username: Vandalay
Post Number: 1789
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, September 2, 2006 - 11:12 am: |
|
tom, now there is one less. Diplomatic routes with the other guys for now.
Sbenois, are you quoting Kofi Annan? |
tom
Citizen
Username: Tom
Post Number: 5720
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, September 2, 2006 - 1:16 pm: |
|
Sounds more like Rumsfeld to me.
"Diplomatic routes with the other guys for now" -- my list of other guys includes China and Russia. Are you delusional or suicidal? |
3ringale
Citizen
Username: Threeringale
Post Number: 383
Registered: 1-2006
| | Posted on Saturday, September 2, 2006 - 1:39 pm: |
|
T-Bone,
I don't know if we could have stopped the planning of the 9/11 attacks in Afghanistan. We did ignore a lot of warning signs and we certainly did not do enough, so there is ample blame to go around. I would recommend watching the DVD On Native Soil for a pretty even-handed look at this.
I did support our efforts in Afgahnistan and I'm sorry that Bin Laden wasn't killed, but I fear we have bungled the whole thing because we were distracted by Iraq. I rather doubt that Saddam was ever going to supply Al Qaeda with WMDs, but I guess we'll never have the answer to that.
Cheers |
notehead
Supporter
Username: Notehead
Post Number: 3795
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, September 2, 2006 - 2:19 pm: |
|
SLK, I'm sure you're a busy guy, but when you get a chance I'd still like you to back up your statement:
"Nohero and the other usual suspects are just in pure denial of the Oil for Food Scandal.... "
Or, maybe taking a few minutes to look at past threads on the subject would enlighten you a tad. |
S.L.K. 2.0
Citizen
Username: Scrotisloknows
Post Number: 2011
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, September 2, 2006 - 4:23 pm: |
|
notey-
ok, maybe denial is the wrong word. but your team still seems to spare criticism and continue to show faith in an organization that has failed the world time and time again...
nice new moniker by the way, pretty artsy of you...
-slk |
T-Bone
Supporter
Username: Vandalay
Post Number: 1791
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, September 2, 2006 - 5:37 pm: |
|
"Sounds more like Rumsfeld to me. "
Thanks for the compliment , Tom, but my other guys are N. Korea and Iran not Russia and China.
"I rather doubt that Saddam was ever going to supply Al Qaeda with WMDs, but I guess we'll never have the answer to that."
3Ring at least you know now that he never will and you couldn't say that three years ago. |
anon
Supporter
Username: Anon
Post Number: 3035
Registered: 6-2002
| | Posted on Sunday, September 3, 2006 - 12:19 am: |
|
So after we caught Saddam and locked him up and found no WMD, why didn't we just go home?
When GWB declared "Mission Accomplished" wasn't he right? When you accomplish your mission you go home. Were we really worried tha Saddam would come back to power and start building WMD again? Then why not just lock Saddam up in Guantanamo and destroy Iraq's capacity, if any, to build weapons?
Why are we still there?
On the other hand if it's important to us to bring stability and democracy to Iraq, why don't we commit enough troops to do so? I think we have something like 130,000 troops in Iraq. Will someone please explain to me why we can't double or triple that number. If something is worth doing, isn't it worth doing right? |
Nohero
Supporter
Username: Nohero
Post Number: 5796
Registered: 10-1999
| | Posted on Sunday, September 3, 2006 - 10:43 am: |
|
I normally don't use terms like "neocons", because labels are imprecise, and less important than what people actually say and believe. However, it seemed the thing to do in response to the usual, dismissive "libs" comment, in the post I was responding to. I didn't know that it would provoke such a response.
That having been said -
I think that shouting "Oil for Food!!!" (especially in a discussion where it is beside the point) is some kind of reflex action, resorted to when the facts are going against someone trying to defend the "neocon" point of view.
If I understand the arguments being made above, apparently we couldn't rely on the U.N. weapons inspectors, because they couldn't find the weapons that weren't there, so it's a good thing that we bombed the heck of of Iraq, so that we could prove that they didn't have the weapons that they would have used against us, if we hadn't bombed them.
Okay, that made my head hurt ... |
anon
Supporter
Username: Anon
Post Number: 3038
Registered: 6-2002
| | Posted on Sunday, September 3, 2006 - 1:27 pm: |
|
I just re-read the post of Sept. 1st, 7:14 PM. Only one appropriate response:
Libs are morons. |
|
