Was the war justified?

[Saw11_2000]

You didn't claim that. You claimed something else. It seems you forget what you posted yesterday. You're now putting words in your own mouth, that are easy defendable. Discussion technique of yesteryear.


WMD? Not letting the inspectors in?


He could? So it is not sure he did.... Is there at least something that is proven and sure and doesn't depend on faith of the rubes, well beside that the government is lying every time they open their mouth?


I know.. You're either with us, or you're with the terrorists...
I tend to read comming from Bushes mouth as..
You're either with us Christian murderers, or with Muslim murderers.

I don't tend to choose which murderer is more likable... Or choose the lesser of 2 evils so to speak.:162:

Can you please post what I said yesterday, I don't recall saying that I thought Iraq had WMDs.

 

[Saw11_2000]

You mean, if the man were marginally competent and was TRYING to find Osama. The man is all about photo ops... like landing a jet on a carrier. He was only trying to sell us his second term and way too many people fell for his deception.

Why do people make such a big deal about him landing a jet on a carrier?

I've flown a plane before, and I liked it, does that mean I am a deceptious fool?

 

[linwood]

WMD? Not letting the inspectors in?

Trance,

I think saw is refering to Saddams building of missiles that were above the range allowed by Un resolutions.
Also that the documents he turned over failed to include alot of things the inspectors knew existed.

In all fairness Saddam went out of his way to imply he did indeed have WMD when he really didn`t.

I think he did this because he feared being viewed as impotent by the Arab world.

He was walking a very thin line that eventually did him in.

 

[Saw11_2000]

After you killed how many innocents? How many lifes is the life of one person working in the WTC worth.. A thousand for each that died? A Million? For each that died in 911?
Where do you take the right to make such a life value estimation?

Is that the moral mountain Bush claims standing on.. A mountain of human victims of his strategy to get 1 man?

There is only 1 word I know that describes it..

Sick.

Again you are making no sense.

The one in 6,000,000,000 was meant to show how truely difficult it is to find a single man in this world. Like a needle in a haystack.

 

[Saw11_2000]

WMD? Not letting the inspectors in?

Trance,

I think saw is refering to Saddams building of missiles that were above the range allowed by Un resolutions.
Also that the documents he turned over failed to include alot of things the inspectors knew existed.

In all fairness Saddam went out of his way to imply he did indeed have WMD when he really didn`t.

I think he did this because he feared being viewed as impotent by the Arab world.

He was walking a very thin line that eventually did him in.

That is what I was meaning linwood, thank you for explaining, my fingers are starting to hurt. =D

 

[Scuba Pete]

Maybe we have misunderestimated you???

The stunt wasted our money and endangered lives and for what? For a stoopid photo op! So he can play John Wayne and say "Mission Accomplished". The man is a walking sound bite.

 

[Saw11_2000]

Politics has always been about wasting our money. They collect it and spend it as they wish, and that's never going to change. How we spend it will change.

 

[Saw11_2000]

Weren't they found and destroyed before the war?


So you mean to say, that by implying, he managed to misleed the most famous intel organisation on this world, so the war was inevidable? (Not that this happened for the first time in recent history... 911 anyone?) You are not saying here, that the US wanted to be "misled" into this war. (And no, I don't think the CIA or other intel orgs are getting their news and intel only from IRAQI television or newspapers.)

http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd/Iraq_Oct_2002.htm#07

"Iraq continues to work on UN-authorized short-range ballistic missiles (SRBMs)—those with a range no greater than 150 km—that help develop the expertise and infrastructure needed to produce longer-range missile systems. The al-Samoud liquid propellant SRBM and the Ababil-100 solid propellant SRBM, however, are capable of flying beyond the allowed 150km range. Both missiles have been tested aggressively and are in early deployment. Other evidence strongly suggests Iraq is modifying missile testing and production facilities to produce even longer-range missiles."

Does not mention that they were destoryed, so I will assume they were not.

 

[Saw11_2000]

Well, you do need a lot of "special" attention.
But look below, I will spell it out for you.


911 killed 3000 US people.(estimate.)
1500 dead soldiers by now in the wars that followed.

total 4500

Total Iraqi's killed to get one man: Between 10,000 and 100,000
But who's counting not?

The exchange ratio at this moment is that foreign life goes at a value of 1 american life for 2.22 foreign lifes all the way upto 1 american life has the same value as 22 foreigners. (And the numbers are growing since foreign life is devaluating fast..)

Where do you get that my 1/6,000,000,000 ratio has ANYTHING to do with death statistics?

Once again, you warp whatever other people say just so you can make a point.

Now, this war is not about just one person, bin Laden would be the impressive capture, but if we do get him, terrorism is not "over".

For 4,500 American deaths (however bad one death may be), disbanding a terrorist organization, and ousting two dangerous governments from power certainly seems like a good accomplishment to me.

 

[Saw11_2000]

You can personally assume all you want for things that you can have hindsight for.
So there is proof that they were used in the war? If not, they still should be there not?

Now, 2 year of torturing the people that were in those programs should have revealed where all the illegal things were hidden, Where are they?

Or have you been torturing the wrong persons?

Do you know what happened to these missiles?

As of Oct. 2002 they were there.

I did not here they were used, but it is a possibility we took the sites out with some Tomahawks during the very beginning of the war, when they would not be adventagious to be used by Saddam due to their range restriction.

That is all just a guess though, if you can pull up some evidence, I would gladly retract that hypothesis.

 

[Ceridwen018]

2 wars.. How is that possible.. Congress hasn't declared war, and only given some power to the executive branch to go after terorists. Where did congress just add Iraq to the list?

Honey, don't pick fights where there aren't any. I was using descriptive licence--we aren't really fighting two official wars.

How can Bush use the US armed forces as his private lynch/henchman to fight his own little wars like the kings of the past in Europe?

He can't. It's called checks and balances. Explain that one.

Obviously not, unless at last proof is given that doens't rely of faith in a bunch of proven liers to have told the truth about that part. And that was in the US property the moment they declared a World WIde hunt for people that either Dead or Alive, it wouldn't matter according to the texas lone shooter. To at a certain moment in time to be changed in " Where OBL is? I don't know, and he isn't much of a priority for us. -- GW Bush 2 years into the war on terrorism <Not verbatim.> )

I think you're agreeing with me, but I can't quite make heads or tails of this last bit. As I said, and as you seem to restate, the controversy over the war in Iraq follows Saddam, not Osama.

Well according to the fact, you are the world power (Not meaning the brightest flames in the furnace, but the best weapons money can supply .) that had at least hand in half of all the atrocities, to the people in the world during the cold war if only because you supported the governments as clients and supported their conduct among their populations. Like it or not.

Well, those are all great reasons for why we shouldn't help suffering peoples of other nations....wait...no they're not. :sarcastic

 

[linwood]

Weren't they found and destroyed before the war?

No not all of them, some weren`t found until we occupied Iraq.
They were the net result of the fruitless search for WMD.

So you mean to say, that by implying, he managed to misleed the most famous intel organisation on this world, so the war was inevidable?

No, the Mossad knew all the time there were no WMD.

Thats not what I mean and if you`d follow my posting in this and other threads we`ve both been involved with you`d know thats not what I mean.
I`ve repeatedly stated the premises for this war were false and unsupportable

You are not saying here, that the US wanted to be "misled" into this war..

This is closer to what I`m saying.
I would say that the current administration misled the US into this war based on false intel.
Notice I didn`t say mistaken intel or misunderstood intel.
I said "false" intel.

The point I`m ultimately trying to make is that technically Saddam put himself into a position to be justifiably invaded by ignoring UN resolutions.

The recent surfacing of proof of top level UN involvement in the oil for food scandal is evidence of ulterior motives for the UN not actually enforcing the resolutions it put in place.
The habit Germany, France, and Russia had for disregarding these resolutions further implicates the security council in ulterior motives.
The first thing American bombers encountered when they entered Baghdads airspace were radio signals designed to screw up the trajectories of US smart bombs.
Those signals were emitted by Russian jammers.
Those Russian technicians who installed the Jammers were still in Iraq when the bombing began.
Compilicity.

The UN spent alot of time pissing and moaning about the effect the oil for food program was having on the health of ordinary Iraqis while all the time they were skimming and scheming for personal profit taken directly from the ordinary Iraqi by way of their actions.

My point is the UN is packed with greedy self serving ******* politiicians who idiotically rationalize their own agenda over and above the resolutions put forth by themselves.

Now if the US admin would have spent some time to investigate the illegal sales of arms from Russia France, Germany and other UN countries to iraq.
If they would have spent some time and had a look at where the money from the oil for food program was actually going they could have published all these crimes, invalidated the UN and invaded Iraq for justifiable reasons considering the first Iraqi war was never really ended, just suspended upon the resolutions put forth by the UN that they were flagrantly disregarding anyway.

Instead the current admin decided it would be faster and easier to make up some crap about WMD and therefore joined their criminal brethren in the UN by illegally invading Iraq.

In essence the UN sucks and always has.

 

[Saw11_2000]

Nicely said, the UN does suck. =D

 

[Saw11_2000]

Well, the war will go on.. Indefinitly, won't it?


If that is an attack, at least I remember what I warp.. Lets leave it at that.


Correct.. as long as innocents are killed by criminals that throw unlawfull improvised and professional explosive devices among innocents. Terrorism will exist.


Hear the dead innocents cheering with you? And the choir is getting bigger and bigger.

Just remember one of your founding fathers..
"What starts in anger, ends in shame." -- B Franklin.

Alright have you found the posts I made that you are critisizing me of not remembering about?

You said:

Well you can't claim that the terrorist are working together with Saddam and that he could give his hidden WMD to those terrorist, if you are now claiming that he repressed those terrorists, and now he is gone they can come out and do their thing..

Ceridwen said:

No one is trying to claim that.

You said:

Well, You might wanna read that part of the thread again then. I think you just called Saw11_2000 a "No one".

I said:

Since when did I ever claim that WMDs were bought from Saddam, they don't have any.

You said:

You didn't claim that. You claimed something else. It seems you forget what you posted yesterday. You're now putting words in your own mouth, that are easy defendable. Discussion technique of yesteryear.

I said back:

Can you please post what I said yesterday, I don't recall saying that I thought Iraq had WMDs.

The closest things that I think you could possible mean would be this post made by me:

Yes, the war was justified. Even though they didn't have WMD, I still believe the world is safer without Saddam.

US should stabilize and withdraw once that is complete.

I meant regardless of WMD presence or not, we should have invaded. Explain to me how that is a double standard.

 

[Saw11_2000]

There are 2 problems I see with your last post (well actually two posts ago now):

1) You never replied that answer from my post.

This was the reply you quoted.

Again, I need to bow out of this one, I do not understand the points you are trying to make. Perhaps someone who does can debate you.

If you carefully examine my post: I had made 2 guesses why they were rebelling now.

2) It has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that there is a WMD presence or not. Which is why originally you accused me of double talking.

 

[Saw11_2000]

Ok, let me state it like this..

If you invaded for the Iraqi people in order to liberate, I see your point. And I would even agree with you..
But to a thinking mind immediately the question pops up: So who is next?
What country without any recources but with gigantic human problems is going to be helped without any self interest by the great american selfless empire? Oh wait.. those countries don't have a gigantic oil ministry to protect with more effort then a national treasury like a museum...

If you invaded for your own political goals or even for the Iraqi recources or profits of the American coorporations that are doing very well with this war in mind the picture becomes different..

The invasion as it looks now, with the rules from Paul Bremer active was not to bring Justice, or Freedom or Liberty or whatever to the Iraqi people, or safety to the Americans or regime change to Iraq. Those reason were only to line up the flag waving O'Reilly chanting rubes.

If you invaded for the Iraqi people in order to liberate, I see your point. And I would even agree with you..

LOL!!! I actually can't believe you fell for that one, I didn't even believe that.

That was Bush's plan B when his WMD plan failed miserably. I would have admired him better if he just said "they were a hostile country, and they regarded us as enemies", that is enough for me to justify the war.

But to a thinking mind immediately the question pops up: So who is next?

If I had to take a guess I would say North Korea, and if I had to guess a time, I would say 2007/2008.

 

[Saw11_2000]

Yes, that is obvious now... :biglaugh:
Since there wasn't, the professional intel knew, the occupation continued, if on nothing else then based on lies.

But you have allready stated that you don't mind being lied to or that (By implication.) you don't mind that people that don't want to lie, are being tortured without end until they do.

The moral highground is gone.
The only respect there is now, is that for the cattleprod but only by animals that fear...

No I don't mind being lied to as long as action is taken.

Doesn't matter how we get there, as long as we get there.

I can 100% understand people who supported the war solely because of perceived WMD presence, who are now pissed, however I am not one of them then or now, so I still support the war.

 

[Saw11_2000]

Had nothing to do with believing.. It was more like giving the benefit of the doubt.
Innocent until proven guilty goes both ways.

Well, honestly, I don't even think that is why they went, that was a cover-up.

I would have respected Bush much much more, if he just said we went to war because they were our enemies, rather than come up with elaborate reasons to scare us.

 

[Saw11_2000]

Which innocents losing their life?

We're in Iraq anyways regardless of what reason he gave us to go there.

 

[Saw11_2000]

I guess you just can't understand that people are unfortunately going to die in a war.

It is a very sad thing, but it is an aspect of war.

It would be so much nicer if people could get along, but I just don't see that happening any time soon, but hey, I could be wrong.

Have a peaceful night.