Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   For The Record, Here's What They Said (Justification for Iraq War)
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 13 of 47 (177335)
01-15-2005 7:56 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Tal
01-15-2005 4:17 PM


Tal writes:
quote:
He didn't use them in the Gulf War, and he definately had them then.
But that's just it. It seems he didn't even really have them then, either. There was work in dealing with production facilities, but he didn't really have much in the way of actual results.
Didn't you read the report?
quote:
I'll answer that with a quote from President Bush.
"I think he dispersed them...."

But that's just it: He didn't. You can't disperse what you don't have. They were all gone by 1991. Didn't you read the report? Iraq didn't have any WMDs, hadn't had any for 10 years, and didn't disperse them to any other country.
[more from the Bush quote]
"But I firmly believe he had weapons of mass destruction. I know he used them at one time."
Yes. He used them against Iran and against the Kurds. And then he didn't have any anymore. And he used them in the 80s during Bush, Sr.'s regime. By the time the first Gulf War came around, he didn't have any.
Didn't you read the report? Every single statement out of the Bush Administration regarding Iraq and WMDs turns out to have been wrong. Iraq didn't have any, we certainly didn't know where they were (which only makes sense since there weren't any), they weren't scattered to the winds (again, which only makes sense since there weren't any), and the idea that Iraq as an imminent threat (which Rumsfeld said) was a lie.
quote:
You mean like he had already done before?
Nearly 20 years ago! We invaded not in the 80s when he had these weapons and were using them against the Kurds. We invaded in 2002 when we had absolutely no indication that he had anything! And he didn't even have them in 1991 when we invaded the first time!

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Tal, posted 01-15-2005 4:17 PM Tal has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 18 of 47 (177687)
01-16-2005 10:02 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Tal
01-16-2005 9:39 AM


Tal writes:
quote:
If he had used them we wouldn't be having this discussion. Using the WMD on the US, or any of his neighbors, would simply have solidified everybody against us.
But that doesn't help you.
If he would never use them, how could he possibly be a threat?
He didn't seem to have a problem with firing Scud missiles into Israel and we didn't carpet bomb Iraq. What on earth would have stopped him from firing a nuke?

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Tal, posted 01-16-2005 9:39 AM Tal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Tal, posted 01-17-2005 2:47 AM Rrhain has replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 30 of 47 (179541)
01-22-2005 2:20 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by Tal
01-17-2005 2:47 AM


Tal responds to me:
quote:
If he would have nuked Isreal, Iraq would be a glass parking lot
So he wasn't a threat. Someone with a weapon who refuses to use it is the same as someone without a weapon. A difference that makes no difference is no difference.
You have painted yourself into a corner. You're saying he's a madman but without any indication of doing anything mad.
So which is it? You don't get to have it both ways. Either he was a threat because he would use the weapons or he wasn't a threat because he never would.
quote:
The threat came from Saddam selling his WMD to terrorists that would like to use them against US targets.
What WMD?
North Korea has them. They were even involved in a plot to sell them to Hussein. Why haven't we invaded?
Iran has them. And we know they are quite hostile to the US. They are part of the "axis of evil," as Bush called it. We know they are involved in terrorism. Why haven't we invaded?
China has them. It's as if you don't remember that they actually attacked and brought down a military airplane of ours and took the crew hostage right at the beginning of Bush's term...before September 11. Why didn't we invade?
If the reason that we invaded Iraq is because they were a threat, then why the hell haven't we invaded the countries that actually are threatening us?

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Tal, posted 01-17-2005 2:47 AM Tal has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 31 of 47 (179543)
01-22-2005 2:28 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by berberry
01-17-2005 3:27 PM


Re: Is the upcoming election the best hope?
berberry writes:
quote:
Much as I am opposed to this war, I can't help but feel that for the average Iraqi these elections present the best opportunity for a hopeful future.
How? They don't even know who they're voting for. The candidate list will not be released until the day of the election when you arrive at the polling place. Of course, somehow the insurgents keep figuring out who is on that list (and there are over 7,000 names on that list) because they keep killing people we later find out were going to be on the ballot.
The voting sites cannot be secured. The methodology is transparently open to fraud (marks on a chalkboard?) The "leader" of the country has publically stated that this "election" is a sham.
How can anyone claim that this is an "opportunity"? How can anyone claim there is any "hope" here? And do you seriously think that if the government that is elected were to tell the US to get the hell out, we would? Don't you think the Iraqis know that? So don't you think they might be of the opinion that the government that is "elected" will be plants that the US orchestrated to be "elected" specifically to keep us there?

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by berberry, posted 01-17-2005 3:27 PM berberry has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by berberry, posted 01-22-2005 2:48 AM Rrhain has replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 32 of 47 (179546)
01-22-2005 2:33 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by 1.61803
01-18-2005 12:07 PM


Re: ***Blink***
1.61803 writes:
quote:
**Does best Rrhain impersonation**
No, no, no. Hold your head like this, then go Waaah. Try it again.

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by 1.61803, posted 01-18-2005 12:07 PM 1.61803 has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 34 of 47 (179561)
01-22-2005 5:13 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by berberry
01-22-2005 2:48 AM


Re: Is the upcoming election the best hope?
berberry responds to me:
quote:
quote:
How can anyone claim that this is an "opportunity"? How can anyone claim there is any "hope" here?
Is there any other, more realistic "hope" or "opportunity" for them?
Yes. Understanding that you cannot force a timetable on governmental change would be a start. It was clear a long time ago that forcing the issue of having elections in January was a stupid idea that wouldn't actually help anything.
It took two years after the surrender of Japan for the creation of a new Constitution. And while we officially turned Japan back over to the Japanese in 1952 (seven years after the surrender), it didn't really become full until we returned Okinawa in 1972 (25 years after the surrender).
The situation in Germany was not that different.
Bush seems to think that the invasion, conversion, occupation of, and withdrawal from Iraq was something that could be carried out in a year, two tops. Since he ran into it completely blind with absolutely no plan, this is not surprising. He has no sense of history and refuses to learn from anybody who might have any experience who would dare contradict his "vision."
If we want to provide them hope and opportunity, then we need to get it into our thick skulls that we have to occupy the entire country and not just this piddly-ass shit that Bush came up with since he refused to listen to his military commanders telling him he needed to send more troops. And then we need to understand that we are going to be there for at least a decade if not longer. That's because despite what he insisted in his 2000 presidential campaign, we are involved in nation building and that is something that is generational in scope, not election cycle.
And we need to be honest with the Iraqi people about this.
quote:
We've created a mess there and you're right, this isn't going to fix it.
Not only is it going to fix it, it's going to make it worse.

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by berberry, posted 01-22-2005 2:48 AM berberry has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Tal, posted 01-22-2005 9:13 AM Rrhain has not replied
 Message 39 by Syamsu, posted 01-22-2005 11:14 AM Rrhain has not replied
 Message 40 by berberry, posted 01-22-2005 1:16 PM Rrhain has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024