He did not let us in

Kyouryuu · Post by **Kyouryuu** » Wed Feb 04, 2004 11:27 pm

I wouldn't really call it a pre-emptive strike.

For years after the Gulf War, we tried to take the diplomatic route. We humored Hussein as he toyed with opening the research lab doors and closing them to UN inspectors on a whim. We chastised him when he outright violated such orders.

But the diplomatic process failed due in part to a breakdown of the UN system. France, specifically Chirac, was bribed off by Hussein. The Shakespearean expression "Methinks she doth protest to much" applies in discovering why France was so vehement in using its veto power to stop the war.

Personally, I think the time for diplomacy was at an end.

bash · Post by **bash** » Thu Feb 05, 2004 9:10 am

Agreed, as far as a policy of pre-emption, this Iraq War was like watching an accident in super-slow motion. None of the mess was terribly surprising considering how long it's been going on. Birds, objectivity seems to be missing in your posts. Like most anti-Bushers, it appears you'll go contrary to what I perceive is your normal sense of fairness if it means justifying your dislike for the man in office. Amazing how often I witness the dark side of what has happened in Iraq just brushed aside. *Oh, that torture and oppression stuff. That's beside the point. This war is about Bush, dammit!*

No, it wasn't. Nor was it about oil or Dick Cheney or Haliburton or the Illuminati or American Empire or whatever else is the Conspiracy of the Day. It was about doing the right thing for the right reasons and at the same time looking out for our future selves. If it didn't come out with all the loose ends neatly tied together and a big fat smoking gun hanging out of Saddam's ass, well, we must have been mistaken and overly-aggressive. How many voices (now lying silent in the grave) would beg to differ? They would accuse us of tardiness, not arrogance.

We'll never know the history that would have happened had we went the way of the French or the UN and looked the other way and simply went on appeasing Hussein. However, in my mind, the history we re-charted happened for and will result in a betterment for everyone involved (with the obvious exception of the Hussein family).

Zuruck · Post by **Zuruck** » Thu Feb 05, 2004 9:25 am

http://www.geocities.com/fort_tilden/uboats.html

Germany was a direct threat to the United States. And they attacked US convoys when we were shipping goods to England.

There are also plenty of other horrible atrocities caused by dictators in different parts of the world, so it seems rather randomly selective to claim liberation as a cause

There are many dictators in that country "Africa" that do incredibly terrible things. AND that country "Africa" is teeming with unchecked terrorism activity.

The parallels between Hitler and Hussain go far beyond each mans affinity for silly mustaches and plastering giant posters of their own image everywhere

I can't think of one except that they were dictators. Hitler was a military genius, had an army that was devoted to his every move, took over almost an entire continent, and created hell on earth for 15 years for a lot of people (not just his own). Saddam doesnt have an army, he cant even take over a country the size of New Jersey, he had to resort to deception to keep his enemies in check. C'mon, there is no comparison.

index_html · Post by **index_html** » Thu Feb 05, 2004 11:57 am

Saddam doesnt have an army, he cant even take over a country the size of New Jersey

In 1991 Saddam HAD the 4th largest standing army in the world, consisting of more than 1 million men. And he had no problem taking that country the size of New Jersey (Kuwait) ... it was a piece of cake. The Iraqi's just had no chance of holding on to it when the coalition decided to throw them out. Saddam was no Hitler, I agree, but there's little doubt that he aspired to that level of infamy. It's been pretty thoroughly reported how he dreamed of controlling the entire Middle East and fancied himself as a modern day sultan (just like his idol Saladin from the 12th century). Thus, the wackjob did stuff like lob scud missles into Israel (which wasn't even involved in the Gulf War) in order to draw them into attacking Iraq and, in turn, prompting the Islamic world to defend Iraq, attack Israel, and set the region on fire. Unfortunately for Saddam, everyone saw through his sorry little plan. No, he wasn't a brilliant military mind, but he could still do (and did) a lot of damage. Much like the Germans invading Poland with modern weaponry to mow down Polish cavalry on horseback, Saddam represented a pretty big threat to lesser advanced and unprepared countries. After Kuwait, it's very possible that he would have moved on to Saudi Arabia if no one stopped him (remember he fired scuds in their direction too). Seems stupid, sure, but that didn't stop him ... which speaks volumes about how unhinged and dangerous he was.

"Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent," Bush said. "Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein ... is not an option."

G.W.B. from the 2003 State of the Union Address

Bold Deceiver · Post by **Bold Deceiver** » Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:48 pm

Still Waiting. (bump).

BD

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Birdseye:
While he wasn't 'podunk', one of my biggest problems with this war is that it set a new precedent. It is not like WWII, where we were directly attacked by the country, and struck back.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think your answer to the following question will help narrow the issues.

Are there any circumstances under which you feel the United States would be justified in attacking another country, other than in retaliation to a direct attack? If you contend such circumstances exist, describe them.

Zuruck · Post by **Zuruck** » Tue Feb 17, 2004 7:43 am

There is no other reason BD. It can't be any simpler than that. In what circumstance do YOU think we should be able to attack anyone we want?

I just think it sets such a bad precedent. What will it be next time? Will we be told the same thing next time? Will more WMD be looked for? Or shall we merely cleanse the leader pool of a "bad guy"? If so, c'mon, there are ten other countries in the vicinity of Iraq that we should be concurrently attacking.

I give this post twenty five seconds before it turns political. That so, you notice that I did not

bash · Post by **bash** » Tue Feb 17, 2004 8:22 am

Z, because a first strike can be the only strike (if a rogue state or terrorist org nukes us), that renders all analogies to past conflicts irrelevant. We're in the era of the one-punch fight. Preemption is the only alternative when enough evidence is available that a credible threat exists. In the case of Saddam, he was a credible threat who claimed to the West not to have WMD all the while doing his Middle East fandance that maybe he did. We chose to believe the dance and the lack of evidence to his claim that he had destroyed his proven stockpiles.

Viewed from a personal perspective, do you sit there like a dope and wait for the first punch to land in your face before you figure out you're in a fight?

There is only one way to mess with America; that is with a surprise attack. No country on the globe has the ability to declare war on us and send the warships sailing and the bombers flying. They wouldn't make it within 1,000 miles of us. Knowing a surprise attack is the only way, one needs to always keep guessing who might try it, and how. The Mecca *masterminds* have shown they are more than willing if provided with the hardware. The links between various rogue states/terrorists orgs and the WMD black market demonstrates we can't trust any of those fools, even our *allies* in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, let alone our many sworn enemies in that part of the Middle East.

Ah, forget it, you never learn anything anyway. All you care about is whether it makes Bush look bad.

To answer your question, if the threat is there and there is sufficient evidence that it is not a conventional threat (i.e., WMD or the strong probability of WMD), I'd attack anyone preemptively (although my first preference would be France

). To do otherwise, imo, would be a compromise of the national security we entrust our leaders to maintain.

Zuruck · Post by **Zuruck** » Tue Feb 17, 2004 10:04 am

That's funny Bash, I didnt say a word about Bush...maybe you'll learn that your little endless parade around that man gets boring.

bash · Post by **bash** » Tue Feb 17, 2004 1:12 pm

I just think it sets such a bad precedent.

You didn't say a word? What and who does the above quote refer to? Generic preemption? Anonymous preemption? Nope, it refers to Bush and his policy of preemption.

Why does *it* set a bad precedent, Z?

My position doesn't change regardless of whether I like the guy or not. He's doing what needed to be done about ten years ago. Therein lies my support.

...your little endless parade around that man gets boring.

Heh, like your whining is all that damn interesting.

index_html · Post by **index_html** » Tue Feb 17, 2004 5:20 pm

I just think it sets such a bad precedent. What will it be next time?

So, what is your criteria? Imminent threat to the U.S.? Since when has that been the litmus test for military action? Was there imminent threat during the Korean War, Vietnam, Kosovo? I think the precedent has already been established.

Or is it U.N. approval that is mandatory? Not a lot of military action in the world has passed that test either. I don't recall the Russians asking permission to invade Afghanistan, the Brits asking to attack the Fauklands, the Chinese bowing to the U.N. before doing the smack-down on Tibet, or NATO getting the U.N. green light to bomb the crap out of Kosovo. Again, I think the precedent is well established.

And, it it was okay for NATO to initiate a massive assault on Kosovo for purely humanitarian reasons (I don't recall any substantial protests at all during that war), why would Iraq be any different? Because the president said there was a threat of WMD's in Iraq and none have materialized? Does that fact invalidate all other perfectly legitimate reasons for military action?

Zuruck · Post by **Zuruck** » Wed Feb 18, 2004 11:15 am

Vietnam, how about American ships being attacked in the Gulf of Tonkin? That's what we were told, but then again, we were told Iraq HAD these weapons and intelligence knew where they were at. And index, do your homework, the Korean War was UN event as well. So let's look at some facts here about the UN.

They were involved in the Korean War.
They were involved in Somalia.
They were involved in the first Gulf War.

"They" refers to the international body of 1st world countries. America wasnt frowned upon in any of those events, the world saw the threat and agreed. Saying they don't do anything is kind of farce because they obviously do when the situation warrants it. Standard rebuttal, Iraq didnt comply with the resolutions set forth by the UN. Ok, now I agree with that. You can only breaks the rules so long before you take action. Inspectors go in, say they cant find anything, say that the intelligence given by America was "garbage". Standard rebuttal, Hans Blix was a liberal right?

If one thing was learned from this liberation of wonderful people from a brutal regime(that's all it is at this point), America needs more reliable intelligence before putting it on the desk of an imcompetent administration. If the US could have provided harder facts instead of a vial filled with sugar, I believe more support from the UN would have occured.

But unlike the podunk white trash that Bush convinced, intelligent ambassadors don't buy Texan rhetoric

(had to put in my anti-political themes here)

Mobius · Post by **Mobius** » Wed Feb 18, 2004 4:14 pm

Regardless of any other considerations: going to war against Iraq was illegal. It broke international law - and if any other country did it, the USA would be absolutely hopping mad.

The fact that Saddam was a bad man is neither here nor there. Dubya just wanted to finish the job his Dad didn't have the stomach for. There are PLENTY of piss-pot dictators who are mass-murderers, thugs, thieves and have done a LOT worse than 5000 killed (5000 is nothing, and Saddam is just a pup in that department!) but you notice the USA is not invading those countries.

And puh-lease - Iraq was NEVER a danger to the USA. The only WMD in the country is the WMD the USA took with them when they went to war.

There was NEVER sufficient justification for invading Iraq. The USA is in an illegal and immoral position internationally.

Personally, I think Dubya did the right thing - but that doesn't make it right, nor legal. I do believe that 88 Billion dollars might have been better employed within the borders of the continental USA.

index_html · Post by **index_html** » Wed Feb 18, 2004 4:14 pm

And index, do your homework

Skimmer. I said N. Korea and Vietnam were not an imminent threat to the U.S. (meaning the actual country, obviously). I said nothing about U.N. involvement in those two wars if you'd bother to read what I typed. My "homework" is just fine, tyvm.

Regardless of any other considerations: going to war against Iraq was illegal. It broke international law

Yeah, right .... like the description "serious consequences" in resolution 1441 had any resemblance to legal clarity.

Personally, I think Dubya did the right thing - but that doesn't make it right

How very wishy-washy of you to say.

5000 is nothing, and Saddam is just a pup in that department!

The 5,000 number merely refers to a single attack on the Kurds in Halabja.

The U.S.-led occupation authority in Iraq has said that at least 300,000 people are buried in mass graves in Iraq. Human rights officials put the number closer to 500,000, and some Iraqi political parties estimate more than 1 million were executed.
http://www.azstarnet.com/dailystar/rela ... s/1561.php

A three-year investigation by Human Rights Watch has determined that at least 50,000 to 100,000 Iraqi Kurds died in the Anfal, leading it to conclude the regime committed genocide.

Following the 1991 insurrection in southern Iraq, an estimated 30,000 to 60,000 Shi'a were killed by regime forces. Tens of thousands of Shi'a were displaced. The U.S. and the U.K. established the northern and southern no-fly zones to protect people in these areas from annihilation by the Iraqi military's helicopter gunships.

The regime's documented chemical attacks from 1983 to 1988 have caused over 30,000 Iraqi and Iranian deaths.
http://usinfo.state.gov/regional/nea/iraq/focus/

Not to mention the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war left 150,000 to 340,000 Iraqis and 450,000 to 730,000 Iranians dead.

It's no world record (if you're running a contest), but far from "nothing". I can't even begin to fathom your statement about overthrowing Hussein as being "immoral".