terror and iraq tie

[epinephrin]

Personally, I think America should be a 'world police.' Everyday we sit back and relax while countless die because of pointlessly awful things like genocide. I've been overseas a lot, and all I can say is that this country is a little bit of Eden in a bubble. I've crossed the border into Myanmar, where the Kerin tribe worships in a church with bullet holes in its pews. Their wives get raped, and their children get kidnapped and made into drug mules. All because, after coversion, they would not grow the plants that will be manufactured into heroin, like the government demanded. It's disgusting, yet we do nothing. Something like 4 million have been wiped out by ethnic cleansing in Niger. In Bosnia it still goes on, but the media doesn't even bother to give attention (you might catch a few minutes about it on BBC at 3 AM). But, perhaps we don't have the resources...

We've had British, Russian, American, and UN intelligence backing our conclusions for Iraq. But, anyway, I wrote this bit of propaganda a while ago, so some of it might be outdated:

Proof of Sarin/Mustard Gas in Iraq:
[url="http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120137,00.html"]http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120137,00.html[/url]

Proof of Chem Shells:
[url="http://washingtontimes.com/national/20040624-112920-5897r.htm"]http://washingtontimes.com/national/200406...12920-5897r.htm[/url]

Radiological Materials.
[url="http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/07/07/iraq.nuclear/"]http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/07/07/iraq.nuclear/[/url]

The Dufler report states Saddam still maintained his ability to mass produce WMDs:
[url="http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/"]http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/[/url]

"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.

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

"There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seing and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years . We also should remember we have alway s underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002.

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do."
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction. "[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.

Heh... You might be able to guess who I voted for.

[Jaime]

[quote]FACT: during the first gulf war, the US had every chance and reason to remove Sadam from power... but they didn't. Wehren't they suppsoed to do what was right? What was best? Why didn't they remove him then? That is a heck of a question.[/quote]

Why didn't George Sr remove Saddam when he had the chance? His own memoirs state that to do so would be a bad idea. The US could not come up with an effective exit strategy out of Iraq.

[epinephrin]

[quote name='Melchisedec' date='Jul 25 2005, 03:25 PM']Tell that to the people fighting the war.
[right][snapback]658463[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I'm going into the Army as a surgeon in a few years. Many of my friends have joined the Armed Forces, and I can tell you it wasn't because they believed that this country only cares about oil. They did it for the citizens back home who just wanna have light up a barbecue on the Fourth, for their brothers in arms who are putting it on the line with them, for the honor of serving our country, and for those who don't have a land fit for democracy. "Our blood, their future," is a slogan I've heard more than once.

[Ellenita]

[quote]Can anyone point to the tie between Al Quieda and Iraq that was used as justification for the war? [/quote]

There certainly is one now and it's being used as a justification for war....

[JP2Iloveyou]

[quote]
Behind the scens, Japan attacked - the Us defended themselves.
The US joining into the war against Germany was for economical reasons.  France and Great Britain owed more money to the US than Germany...[/quote]

Even if it was for economic reasons, are you therefore arguing that we should not have gone to war with the Nazis?

[quote]Little known fact, the US was selling oil to Germany - EVEN WHEN THEY WHERE AT WAR WITH EACH OTHER!  Why?  For profits, nothing like selling your goods to both sides, after all, the longer they fight, the more money you make, even if one the sides is your own country, gotta keep them pennies rolling.[/quote]

Do you have evidence of this? Even if this were the case, and it might be, I don't really know, it doesn't change my fundamental premise that when there is an evil tyrant in the world, the United States, given our economic and military powers, has a moral obligation to respond.

[quote]There is a difference between helping out an ally which is attacked, and jumping on a 'bully' just because he is a bully.  Unless that 'bully' does anything concrete to your little borther - how can you be justified?  And if two bullies where fighting one against the other, which bully would you side with?[/quote]

Oh, that's right. The United States is a big bad bully. Never mind the billions of dollars we give in aid to third world countries each year, or the water, food, medicine, and education we have brought to the Iraqi people, which interestingiy enough is never reported by the mainstream press. And for the record, that bully did do something to our little brother. Remember the SCUD missiles launched at Israel in the first Gulf War? Remember the invasion of Kuwait, the genocide of the Curdish people? Saddam did plenty.

[quote]Oh really?  Have you ever heard of a nation called Rwanda?  How many international representatives begged the US for help in Rwanda, and the US turned ablind eye.  Millions where slaughtered in an attempted genocide that was proven with the brightess of clarity - the US does nothing meaningful to help...  No oil in Rwanda, no gold, no copper mines... no money to be made.[/quote]

Yes I've heard of Rwanda and yes I fault the Clinton administration for doing nothing. Of course, that was the MO of that administration, do nothing, watch the polls, and cover your rear-end.

[quote]what about Vietnam?  The good US doing the world's police duty?  Because the French couldn't handle it right?[/quote]

I don't know enough to comment on Vietnam. What I do know is that North Vietnam was Communist controlled and the Church has with one voice wholeheartedly condemned Communism.

[quote]FACT: during the first gulf war, the US had every chance and reason to remove Sadam from power... but they didn't.  Wehren't they suppsoed to do what was right?  What was best?  Why didn't they remove him then?  That is a heck of a question.[/quote]

Bush 41 was wrong to not finish the job in 1991. I agree with you wholeheartedly.

[Don John of Austria]

Okay first, the Nazi Germany war thing---

1 we didn't Go to war agianst the Germans because of economic reasons, American banks had lent Germany a vast quanity of money during the 20's and 30's and we had a stronger economic tie with gremany in the 30's than with England however we had made our Choice in WWI ( where we had a very stong minority who wanted to go in on Germany's side). After that there was zero chance we where going to fight England with germany, we infact suppressed the speaking of German in America during WWI even in churchs. The significance of this in many parts of the country can not be overstated, in some places in the US German was the only spoken langauge, to give you an Idea -- in Texas in 1876 the new Capital building( the one that is there now) was dedicated, the dedication was in German not English or Spanish because that was the Language spoken by the majority of people in Central Texas. At any rate the decision to side with England was made on social not economic grounds.

2. We where actually acting as a beligerant agiant Nazi germany for 2 years before Pearl Harbor. However we were not shooting at them our ships however would shadow their U-boats and then radio British ships their location, the british ships would then come to that location and attack them, since we were not an offical beligerant the Nazi subs were not authorized to fire on us.


3. After Pearl we did not declare war on Germany, Hitler in support of his Axis Ally declared war on us, this gave Germany the excuse to start firing on American Warships and civilian ships anyhere in the world.



Now as to why we didn't take out Hussien in the first Gulf War, why would we? we ha no reason to, we fulfilled our objective and drove him from Kuwait and defanged his military. People need to stop thinking in Terms of total war-- which isimmoral anyway-- it was a war over a piece of real estate and got it, and we crushed his economy and military might in the process, it was a very 19th century war.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote]Yes I've heard of Rwanda and yes I fault the Clinton administration for doing nothing. Of course, that was the MO of that administration, do nothing, watch the polls, and cover your rear-end.[/quote]

Oh I wouldn't say that he was all to willing to bomb the hell out of serbian Christians trying to defend their ancestrial homeland from invading muslims who murdered and raped them. I would say he did plenty.

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote]Can someone tell me why the link was necessary? Isn't it enough that he was killing people and being a tyrant? I mean, there was no direct link between Pearl Harbor and Nazi Germany either, so by your logic, we were unjustified in attacking the Germans in WWII as well[/quote]

If the President said there was a link between them that did not exist, such as in this war, the premise the world war II was based on would have been unjustified. This here quote above is the kind of rhetoric is what I was trying to get people to stop commiting and admit the lack of link.
[quote]had to put that with asterisks to emphasize so some don't go getting well Saddam was bad, without admitting the lie the war was based on[/quote]

I agree that we should be the world's police to an extent. I just don't think we should do it based on a lie.

[White Knight]

Not only did we go to war against Iraq because they had a terrorist dictator, but we went there to Liberate Millions of Iraqi folks from opression, and evil. We not only went there for our safety, but for the safety of Israel.

We went there for many reasons, if you can't agree with them or if ya do agree with them, no matter what, we as American citizens we have to Support our Troops, no matter what we can't turn out backs on them.

If we do, this turns into another Vietnam, and we can't afford that.

Iraq is under control mostly, its just the secular media and biast liberal media only report the wrongs, on Iraq, never the postitive stuff.

[Winchester]

It's a strategic maneuver. Perhaps not by Bush, but by someone.

[Melchisedec]

[quote name='White Knight' date='Jul 27 2005, 12:27 AM']We went there for many reasons, if you can't agree with them or if ya do agree with them, no matter what, we as American citizens we have to Support our Troops, no matter what we can't turn out backs on them.
[/quote]

I dont see how you cannot support your troops and be opposed to the war. If anything my compassion for the troops is what I primarily see as unjust about the whole war. I lost my bestfriend almost two years ago and now I'm down to my last good friend whom I grew with. Hes in iraq right now, and I truly hope he comes back to us. I support our troops out there. Just not the cronies who sent them there.