I hate being right

quote:

---

based on no real intelligence that Iraq posed an imminent threat to anyone

---

What about all the Democrats (including Clinton and Gore) that told us Saddam had WMD? Remember, Clinton even brought us to the brink of war with Iraq in '98.

quote:

---

Never mind. Isn't North Korea next onthe list? Or maybe its Iran.

---

That's another good point. If we *had* to invade somebody shouldn't it have been Iran?Still glad Saddam is out of power.

I have decided that Schraf is correct on the lack of WMD. If we had known there were no WMD's I would probably not have favored the war.I was wrong, but am in good company.Bush was wrong, as were a host of Dems like Clinton himself. We will see if any links between Saddam and al-Qaeda pan out. If Bush lied to us so did Clinton and Gore.Bush and Clinton reacted to the perceived threat differently. Clinton lobbed some cruise missiles at Iraq and called it a day. Bush invaded and now has Saddam in a brig somewhere.Both leaders apparently believed that Saddam had WMD ambitions. Both leaders recognized or at least claimed that Saddam must not obtain WMDs. Which leader was more decisive?Which leader has absolutely removed any possible threat Saddam posed to the United States? The brunt of the argument against the war is that Saddam never posed a legitimate threat in the first place. IE, the best that they can do is point out (correctly) that we chose the wrong target, not that we failed to remove the alleged threat.Clinton told us Saddam was an imminent threat and promised to do something about it:

quote:

---

"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

---

( http://www.jrwhipple.com/war/wmd.html )I want to note that although WMD's have not been found, forbidden missiles have been found. Clinton's attempts(?) to deny these delivery systems to Saddam failed. And, for those who favored UN inspections, when some of those missiles were found Saddam threatened to defy the UN orders to destroy them even as war loomed.Now look at it from a practical perspective. The assumption in both political parties was that Saddam will covet WMDs for the rest of his time in power. The entire argument was over how to deny Saddam those weapons. The doves favored continued UN inspections, the hawks invasion. Leading up to the war Saddam suddenly decided it might be in his best interest to bring in the inspectors---and what do they find? Illegal missile technology. To top that off, Saddam has the gall (see above) to announce that he doesn't want to give that up, effectively demonstrating to all the world that inspections are a joke without Bush breathing down his back.What would we do? Continue the sanctions indefinately? Maintain permanent troop buildup outside Iraq so we can invade at a moment's notice? Knowing that despite these methods Saddam might *still* be working on his bombs?Or we could solve it permanently, which we did. Saddam is safely tucked away watching home movies of his reign as CIA operatives try to make him crack on things like Scott Speicher, WMD, and the insurgency. Bush removed the man who reigned as the "villain" in American life from 1991-2001 and the voters just might remember that next year. If only we had bin Laden.And a closing farce:

quote:

---

"WHAT?! You're sh!!!!ng me! You HAVE to be sh!!!ng me. You'd BETTER be sh!!!!ng me!" -- Howard Dean on Saddam's capture, according to The Daily Show (Comedy Central)

---

[This message has been edited by gene90, 12-23-2003]

Didn't the invasion of Afghanistan break international law?

As for the gasmasks, it is also possible that some of the Iraqi military believed/were told Saddam had WMDs. Who cares anyway.

quote:

---

REAL crime Clinton suppostedly committed

---

It's only perjury, my gosh. Could I get away with it like he did?What is your definition of a "real crime"?And when the head of the Executive Branch, who is ultimately tasked with law enforcement in this nation, cannot himself abide by the nation's laws he is supposed to be upholding, you don't see a problem with that?[This message has been edited by gene90, 12-23-2003]

Double post, please delete.[This message has been edited by gene90, 12-23-2003]

Ah, a reasoned reply.

quote:

---

First of all I am NO fan of Clinton.

---

I don't mean to imply that you or anyone here is personally are a fan of Clinton, especially since I can only guess at your party affiliations. But the war in Iraq is very much a partisan issue so I saw fit to make the comparison between the two presidents. It seems to me inconsistent that some on the Left at large (not anyone here in particular) are inconsistent in claiming Bush lied (again, I haven't caught anyone here making that specific accusation) about WMD, when Clinton made similar claims that he did not act on.

quote:

---

The problem with your line of argument is that it had nothing to do with my statement.

---

Actually this was a reply to Schraf's request for commentary, and not intended to be a direct answer to one of your arguments. Actually I'm not directly responding to anyone, just placing an argument after my silence had been noted.

quote:

---

Clinton's issue was preventing Saddam from holding on to remaining WMD stocks as well as continuing to build WMDs.

---

WMDs which now apparently do not exist. If Bush is a liar because he claimed that Iraq had WMD, does that not make Clinton a liar as well?
Or are both presidents guilty only of having bad intel?

quote:

---

He never stated that Iraq posed an imminent threat, only that he was defying UN controls.

---

quote:

---

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.

---

(See link in previous post)

quote:

---

You may note that he did not attack because there was no support in the UN for an invasion at that time.

---

This is the same reason Bush I ended Gulf War I, he felt that his UN mandate did not cover a regime change, yet I seem to remember partisan bickering over it.So, should whatever happens to be popular in the UN dictate whether or not the US has a right to defend itself against perceived threats?

quote:

---

Secondly there were other (greater) threats to our national security, as well as the security of other nations, than Iraq.

---

I concur.

quote:

---

Civilization had been working toward establishing that "ends do not justify means" in international affairs, but Bush has set civilization back decades with this one rash move.

---

Wait a minute. I'm really eager to jump in on this one so I could be misrepresenting you. But is it your position that war is categorically wrong even if it precipitates positive results?For example, would you say that it is wrong that Lincoln did not capitulate to the Confederacy, even though it resulted in the end of American slavery? Or that the Revolution was morally wrong even though it brought American sovereignty? Or had we attacked Germany early rather than waiting on Pearl Harbor, would that have been wrong, even though it would have prevented or ended the Holocaust?

quote:

---

If anything there will now be more opportunities for extremist organizations to take root in Iraq and act as a base against US interests. And this is true despite having no WMDs. Homeland Security pointed out after the invasion began, terrorists were unlikely to import Iraqi bio/chem weapons anyway. That would be way too risky. It'd be easier to put together near the site of the attack. That's just how easy bio/chem weapons are these days.

---

Unfortunately, these are all true.

quote:

---

Such things do not make it look like we have ended the Iraqi peoples' problems either.

---

I agree that that sort of behavior from our appointed ruler of Iraq is very disturbing.

quote:

---

Iraq may not have missiles anymore, the one bit of "forbidden" technology which was found, but those missiles were unwieldly anyway and not exactly posing a threat to neigboring nations (or the US).

---

That's what we know now. But beforehand our leaders (both parties) were convinced that Saddam had or would soon have WMDs. It is my opinion that the presence of the illegal missiles, and Saddams disturbing unwillingness to dispose of them even with war imminent, demonstrate that he could not be dealt with any other way.

quote:

---

By the way... why has this really old thread come back to life?

---

The implication in message one that I was cowering or avoiding the point so I wouldn't have to capitulate. In reality I had given up trying to convince anyone of my position and had gone to worry about more important things (namely, my education). Well here it is: I was wrong about the WMDs. My current opinion is that the invasion was the correct action under the wrong circumstances. It did some of what it was supposed to do but wasn't necessary.

quote:

---

The best argument I have heard for why we actually invaded Iraq was to remove a bad man from power.

---

This is why I felt like protesting the war was immoral. Regardless of whether or not there were WMDs, Saddam was going to be gone. Therefore opposing the war meant (indirectly) advocating allowing Saddam to remain in power. I can only speak for myself but I simply cannot do that with a clear conscience, though perhaps with different logic it is possible. I know that we support people who are just as bad and I know it isn't our job to go around righting wrongs but I couldn't stomach opposing the war.Of course the case can be (and has been) made that the Iraqis were better off with Saddam and things are about to go back to the way they were. I'm going to give it a few years and then decide if my position had any moral validity. I will just admit now that I'm not particularly pleased with the way things are now.

quote:

---

That would leave us to ruling the country to get it back on its feet, as well as protecting the US in real ways, rather than telling us we need to capture some bogeyman and all our problems will be over.

---

In the short term the only way to safety is to catch 'bogeymen'. The war in Iraq shows that you also have to get the *right* bogeyman.

quote:

---

Oh yeah, and if everything would be so much safer without Saddam, what's with the Orange Xmas we're having?

---

I recognize we are no safer, unless terrorists are blowing themselves up in Iraq rather blowing themselves up over here. But, if invading Afghanistan made us safer, why are we at Orange Alert?There are no 'quick fixes' to terrorism. Not even killing terrorists will solve it in the long run. We're just going to have to be more even-handed in dealing with Israel and the Palestinians, and stop propping up Saddamites.[This message has been edited by gene90, 12-23-2003]

quote:

---

No. We were attacked by members of Al-Queda, which threatened more attacks. The ruling government was protecting that group and so posed a threat against US national security.

---

Okay. We've established that clear affiliation with al-qaeda justifies attacks.What about clear affiliation with Hamas? Ansar al-Islam? What if (for the sake of argument) the claims that Saddam was associated with al-Qaeda turn out to be more than shoddy journalism or propaganda?

quote:

---

​

Add to it that those 3000 contained residents from many other nations than the US and you now have them involved (legitimately) in pursuing a war against the Taliban as well.

---

What if France, Germany, Russia, Canada, and Belgium had chosen not to support the invasion of Afghanistan? Would you then argue that we did not have the right to invade? What if the UN just snubbed their noses at us and told us that we got what we deserved?Is what is right determined by majority opinion?