posted on October 21, 2003 12:04:53 AM new
Okay...thanks for answering. I appreciate your 'take' on this issue. But I still can't dismiss that both Hillary and Gephardt said they had their *own* security people, people *they* trusted, not the Bush people, look at this information and they agreed with the Bush administrations 'call' on this. And Blair still stands behind their intelligence too.
So....20/20 hindsight is great. But I say we need more time and support to find the womd or where they were taken to. And I'll support/believe any president over Sadam. But making a decision this important has to be made with probability of error on our side. And I believe it was.
posted on October 21, 2003 12:39:46 AM new
Iraq is 437,072 sq km --just a bit bigger than California. We've been there for,what, 8 months? And not a WMD to be seen.
Logic says that if your country is being invaded...and your ass is being whupped big time...and you actually have WMD...you're going to use them. They didn't. Why? And now their country is occupied. And they fight back with..what? WMD? Noooo. Throughout this war, their armaments compared to ours have been pathetic.
There just plain aren't any. So here we are stuck occupying a country & likely to remain so for quite a long time. And our government, which thumbed their nose at the UN, said they were useless & defunct & should be disbanded, etc. etc. etc. and that the big bad US certainly didn't need the UN's help....has gone back to the UN to beg for help. Gratefully accepted that help. Because Bush discovered that he'd bitten off a bit more than he could chew.
And now he casts his eye about for the next "evil" country to stomp on. And I doubt his tune will change for the rest of his presidency; if elected a second time, Bush will continue in the same vein.
Censorship, like charity, should begin at home; but unlike charity, it should end there --Clare Booth Luce
posted on October 21, 2003 01:19:43 AM new
How I justify the questions you just posed for myself.
We've been there for,what, 8 months? And not a WMD to be seen
We went in Iraq in April. We were at war for a good month or so.
The womd unit wasn't sent in to Iraq until 2-3 months ago, I believe. A small team was sent in at first and more later. Picture CA covered in sand. Picture all kinds of things, as large as large planes, buried under that sand. Going to take awhile.
you actually have WMD...you're going to use them. They didn't. Why?
Just like before in the war with Iraq, when we were so afraid of their military and what they'd do. At first sign of fire...their soldiers either surrendered or deserted. We did find many anti-womd suits and gas masks and it can reasonably be assumed they weren't there for no reason.
Throughout this war, their armaments compared to ours have been pathetic.
Agreed....but we didn't know that going in. Many didn't want our troops sent in because they argued they'd all be killed by what, at that time, was believed to be there. clinton choose to bomb from the air...no ground troops, so we got no updated information.
I also hold the position that during the past 10 years or so...maybe longer...we had NO intelligence in that area. I've read many times where people have said..if we have satelites that can see a license plate...why....My answer is that's not the same as following thousands of people around and trying to identify what they're all doing, especially when they're inside buildings. Our intelligency has long been neglected in that area. And again, we didn't have the advantage of 20/20 hindsight that we do now.
stuck occupying a country & likely to remain so for quite a long time.
Personally from what I've read they're [the Iraqi's] are hoping to have a constitution written up and hold elections within a year or two.
our government, which thumbed their nose at the UN, said they were useless & defunct & should be disbanded
and for many, many years I've agreed with that...nothing to do with Bush at all. It can make all the decisions it wants to, it can agree on resolutions, but it has no teeth. No inforcement. Plus look at all the terrorist nations that take the 'lead' chair in rotation.
US certainly didn't need the UN's help....has gone back to the UN to beg for help.
I don't see it the same way you do. We didn't need their help and we still don't. But it's a political move on Bush's part. To appease those on the left and right who don't want us to foot this bill alone. Countries had promised financial, troop, etc help IF the UN agreed. It has now. But it never would have happened with our so-called allies, France Germany and Russia against us. France threatened a veto even IF we got Germany and Russia to agree. So, with the intelligence we had to make a move without the UN. The resolution 1441 was passed by a 15-0 vote. But no one would support putting 'teeth' into the 12 year issue.
During this 12 years the US was spending a LOT of money protecting the no fly zone. That cost can't be overlooked not to mention that Saddam's army was continually firing at our troops...put there under the UN approval. That alone was in violation of previous resolutions. But who cared except the US and the UK...nobody.
now he casts his eye about for the next "evil" country to stomp on. Again...we are fighting a war on terrorism. He told us from right after 9-11 that this was going to be a long and difficult process. We weren't fighting a country, we were fight individuals who have plans for our country.
And I doubt his tune will change for the rest of his presidency I fully agree with you there. And many support that position, as do I. They want a president in office that's willing to keep his committment to eliminating those who work, and have promised, to bring our nation down. I believe those threats they've made. I will do bonkers if an anti-war president gets in office. We will be wide open and just inviting the terrorist to hit us again.
posted on October 21, 2003 08:09:37 AM new. But I like millions of people after 9-11 thanked their lucky stars he was our president. He dealt with the whole issue extremely well
Why? Are you comfortable with a leader with a very poor military record? One who loves to play soldier? The landing on the carrier was pure campaign stop.
Well he did crush the taliban, but missed the leadership.
Well, Saddam was defeated. Twice. Daddy left him in place and baby hasn't nailed him yet. 12 to 13 years more of Saddam was Daddy's fault and sonny boy is going to create a radical Muslim state. Did you know or do you even care it was the Reagan administration that propped up Saddam with Rumsfeld being the one handling the job.
posted on October 21, 2003 09:27:49 AM new
Something you appear to be overlooking is that Bush one had a UN mandate that did not include/allow him to go after Saddam, nor to enter any other part of Iraq except where it was need to drive him back from the area he invaded. You appear to have forgotten the REASON we went into Iraq in 1991????
Had Saddam NOT agreed to get rid of or prove he had gotten rid of his known womd, the war might not have ended and then we could have gone into Badgdad.
Maybe you could fill me in on your opinions of when clinton bombed Iraq. Was that un-called for, un-necessary too, in your view? Was his speech on Dec. 16, 1998 all lies too, according to you?
