Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
... so we went before the UN and made our case for invasion, riddled with blatant inaccuracies, rumor, and hearsay, and were overruled by the only body legally allowed to give permission to enforce their own resolutions. Go on...
This is about the impeachment of Bush, not the inability and/or corruption of Congress. Two wrongs don't make a right. They're both wrong, and both deserve to get crapped on.
|
Remember operation Desert Fox in December of 1998. Were you calling for the impeachment of Clinton?
Quote:
On Wednesday when U.S. and British forces launched strikes against Iraq, I stated that we were pursuing clear military goals. And as President Clinton has announced, we've achieved those goals. We've degraded Saddam Hussein's ability to deliver chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. We've diminished his ability to wage war against his neighbors. Our forces attacked about 100 targets over four nights, following a plan that was developed and had been developed and refined over the past year. We concentrated on military targets and we worked very hard to keep civilian casualties as low as possible. Our goal was to weaken Iraq's military power, not to hurt Iraq's people.
Since Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in 1990, the United States and other countries have enforced the U.N. Security Council resolutions to contain Iraq from attacking its neighbors and from using weapons of mass destruction. That containment policy continues. We will maintain a strong, ready force in the Gulf to respond to any contingency. We will ensure that economic sanctions on Iraq stay in effect until Iraq complies with the Security Council resolutions and mandates. Saddam Hussein chose confrontation over cooperation. There's no pleasure to be had when a brutal dictator chooses to pit his people against the entire international community. Our quarrel is not with the Iraqi people. The United States has led in supporting the oil for food program which ensures that the money from the sale of Iraq's oil goes for food and other humanitarian needs and not for weapons or palaces.
We've taken great care to minimize casualties among innocent civilians in our strikes. I find no joy in watching a people in a land so long and rich in history endure deprivation from sanctions or suffering from attacks. To the extent that there are civilian casualties, only Saddam and his brutally destructive regime are to blame.
|
http://www.defenselink.mil/transcrip...nscriptid=1791
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dc_dux
ace...what the fuck?
Your typical response with an irrelevant question and a convenient way to ignore my last post that explained how the policy you supported has failed at every level.....the ME is less stable than any time in recent years....the terrorist threat is greater...and our reputation as a nation is at its lowest.
|
I responded to the first item in your post. I can certainly respond to the others, I just seek resolution on items one at a time. Do you think 9-11 had anything to do with our invasion of Iraq? I don't, and I assumed you did not either. Your statement was a surprise to me. I was shocked by the implication that 9-11 was connected to the overthrow of Saddam.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ratbastid
Indeed, "Al Qaeda In Iraq" is made up by the Bush propaganda machine. They don't call themselves that. They have only tenuous links with anyone who was ever associated with Al Qaeda proper. There's NO Al Qaeda in Iraq, and there never has been. Saddam Hussein was vigilant about keeping them OUT, in fact.
|
I agree that Saddam had no use for Al Qaeda in Iraq. However, after Saddam and his government was overthrown Al Qaeda has been making unsuccessful attempts at controlling the country. I also agree that Al Qaeda is a term that does not always accurately describe some of the people who share the Al Qaeda agenda.